alternet--2020-12-27--Relatives, activists and attorneys demand justice for unarmed Black man killed by Columbus police

Grieving relatives of Andre ' Hill—an unarmed Black man shot dead by police in Columbus , Ohio earlier this week—along with their lawyers and community activists demanded justice at a Saturday afternoon candlelight vigil and news conference in the Ohio capital .
`` My dad was my best friend , '' Hill 's daughter Karissa Hill said at the vigil , according to WBNS .
`` He was my protector and my provider . ''
`` Big daddy meant a lot in my home , to my kids , and to me , '' she added , referring to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called him .
Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump , who is representing the family , told the audience that `` until we get justice for Andre ' Hill , there wo n't be no peace in Columbus , there wo n't be no peace in Ohio , there wo n't be no peace in America . ''
Hill `` was n't an intruder , he was n't a criminal , he was n't doing anything nefarious , '' Crump said .
`` His crime was he was a Black man . ''
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times Andre ' was shot , that 's why we 're going to do an independent autopsy , '' Crump added .
Hill , 47 , was standing inside the garage of a friend 's home early Tuesday morning when he was killed by veteran Columbus officer Adam Coy , who was responding to a neighbor 's non-emergency disturbance complaint , the Columbus Dispatch reported .
Footage from Coy 's body camera shows the officer approaching an open door to a dark garage as Hill walks from behind a parked car toward him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one hand .
His other hand is not visible .
There is no audio in the footage leading up to the shooting , as neither Coy nor the officer who responded to the call with him had their body cameras turned on until after the incident .
However , the cameras have a `` look-back '' feature that captures 60 seconds of video—but not audio—before they are turned on .
What is clear from the video is that Coy opened fire within 10 seconds of encountering Hill .
The audio resumes as Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coy orderes him to put his hands out to his sides and roll over on his stomach .
But Hill , who can be heard groaning in the video , does not move until Coy rolls him over .
The two officers waited four minutes before they called for medics .
Five minutes into the video , Hill still has n't received medical attention .
Another officer who arrived at the scene can be heard suggesting , `` let 's cuff him up . ''
Columbus Police Chief Tom Quinlan on Thursday announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Today is Christmas Eve , '' Quinlan said in a video explaining his decision , `` a time when we should be gathering with those we love .
The family of Andre ' Hill has nothing to celebrate this holiday .
Someone very important wo n't be with them this holiday , or any other . ''
`` A Columbus police officer is responsible for that , '' the chief added .
`` And that breaks my heart .
This is why today I am announcing action to terminate Officer Adam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by city officials for failing to turn on his body camera or render aid to Hill after shooting him—has a history of excessive force complaints during the course of his 19-year career .
The Dispatch reported Coy had nine complaints filed against him in 2003 alone—including four in one month .
`` To see [ Hill ] lying in the driveway , minute after minute after minute , with no attempt to render aid and comfort ...
I 've never seen body-worn camera footage like that , '' he said .
The Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of Hill 's killing , the Dispatch reported .

Grieving relatives of Andre' Hill—an unarmed Black man shot dead by police in Columbus, Ohio earlier this week—along with their lawyers and community activists demanded justice at a Saturday afternoon candlelight vigil and news conference in the Ohio capital.
"My dad was my best friend," Hill's daughter Karissa Hill said at the vigil, according toWBNS. "He was my protector and my provider."
"Big daddy meant a lot in my home, to my kids, and to me," she added, referring to the name by which Hill's three grandchildren called him.
Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing the family, told the audience that "until we get justice for Andre' Hill, there won't be no peace in Columbus, there won't be no peace in Ohio, there won't be no peace in America."
Hill "wasn't an intruder, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't doing anything nefarious," Crump said. "His crime was he was a Black man."
"We want to find out how many times Andre' was shot, that's why we're going to do an independent autopsy," Crump added.
Hill, 47, was standing inside the garage of a friend's home early Tuesday morning when he was killed by veteran Columbus officer Adam Coy, who was responding to a neighbor's non-emergency disturbance complaint, the Columbus Dispatchreported.
Footage from Coy's body camera shows the officer approaching an open door to a dark garage as Hill walks from behind a parked car toward him, holding up a cell phone in one hand. His other hand is not visible.
There is no audio in the footage leading up to the shooting, as neither Coy nor the officer who responded to the call with him had their body cameras turned on until after the incident. However, the cameras have a "look-back" feature that captures 60 seconds of video—but not audio—before they are turned on.
What is clear from the video is that Coy opened fire within 10 seconds of encountering Hill. The audio resumes as Hill is seen lying on the ground and Coy orderes him to put his hands out to his sides and roll over on his stomach. But Hill, who can be heard groaning in the video, does not move until Coy rolls him over.
The two officers waited four minutes before they called for medics. Five minutes into the video, Hill still hasn't received medical attention. Another officer who arrived at the scene can be heard suggesting, "let's cuff him up."
Columbus Police Chief Tom Quinlan on Thursday announced he had begun termination proceedings against Coy.
"Today is Christmas Eve," Quinlan said in a video explaining his decision, "a time when we should be gathering with those we love. The family of Andre' Hill has nothing to celebrate this holiday. Someone very important won't be with them this holiday, or any other."
"A Columbus police officer is responsible for that," the chief added. "And that breaks my heart. This is why today I am announcing action to terminate Officer Adam Coy."
Coy—who was roundly blasted by city officials for failing to turn on his body camera or render aid to Hill after shooting him—has a history of excessive force complaints during the course of his 19-year career. The Dispatchreported Coy had nine complaints filed against him in 2003 alone—including four in one month.
A visibly disturbed Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther spoke at a Wednesday press conference.
"To see [Hill] lying in the driveway, minute after minute after minute, with no attempt to render aid and comfort... I've never seen body-worn camera footage like that," he said.
The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation is overseeing the investigation of Hill's killing, the Dispatch reported.


alternet--2020-12-27--Watch: Bodycam footage shows Ohio cop killing unarmed Black man sitting in his own car

Twitter users are sharing police bodycam footage taken during the Tuesday police shooting of Andre Hill , an unarmed 47-year-old Black man in Columbus , Ohio who was shot dead just for sitting in a vehicle within his own garage .
The video shows that Officer Adam Coy killed Hill within seconds of encountering him .
Hill emerges in an open garage with an illuminated cell phone screen in his left hand , his right hand out of view .
After killing Hill , Coy ( his gun still aimed ) screams at Hill to put his hands up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his garage floor .
Police had been responding to a non-emergency disturbance call within the neighborhood at 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning .
Thomas Quinlan , Chief of the Columbus Division of Police in Ohio , has announced his intention to fire Coy and file two departmental charges alleging Coy 's critical misconduct .
There is also an ongoing investigation into the actions of other officers present during Hill 's slaying .
`` I have seen everything I need to see , to reach the conclusion that Officer Coy must be terminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some may call this a rush to judgment .
It is not .
This violation cost an innocent man his life . ''
Quinlan said Coy 's actions `` at a minimum , demonstrate incompetence , gross neglect of duty , misfeasance , malfeasance , and nonfeasance . ''
This is actually the second deadly shooting of a Black man in Columbus , Ohio this month .
The first was Casey Christian Goodson Jr. , a 23-year-old Black man who was shot and killed on his doorstep by an Ohio sheriff 's deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time , Goodson was carrying a sandwich and not a gun as legal authorities have previously claimed , Goodson 's family states .
Goodson 's shooting is currently under investigation by U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers , the Justice Department 's Civil Rights Division , the FBI in Cincinnati and the Columbus police .

Twitter users are sharing police bodycam footage taken during the Tuesday police shooting of Andre Hill, an unarmed 47-year-old Black man in Columbus, Ohio who was shot dead just for sitting in a vehicle within his own garage.
The video shows that Officer Adam Coy killed Hill within seconds of encountering him. Hill emerges in an open garage with an illuminated cell phone screen in his left hand, his right hand out of view. After killing Hill, Coy (his gun still aimed) screams at Hill to put his hands up and not to move as Hill lays dying on his garage floor.
Police had been responding to a non-emergency disturbance call within the neighborhood at 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning.
Thomas Quinlan, Chief of the Columbus Division of Police in Ohio, has announced his intention to fire Coy and file two departmental charges alleging Coy's critical misconduct. There is also an ongoing investigation into the actions of other officers present during Hill's slaying.
"I have seen everything I need to see, to reach the conclusion that Officer Coy must be terminated immediately," Quinlan said. "Some may call this a rush to judgment. It is not. This violation cost an innocent man his life."
Quinlan said Coy's actions "at a minimum, demonstrate incompetence, gross neglect of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance."
This is actually the second deadly shooting of a Black man in Columbus, Ohio this month.
The first was Casey Christian Goodson Jr., a 23-year-old Black man who was shot and killed on his doorstep by an Ohio sheriff's deputy on Friday, December 4. At the time, Goodson was carrying a sandwich and not a gun as legal authorities have previously claimed, Goodson's family states.
Goodson's shooting is currently under investigation by U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, the FBI in Cincinnati and the Columbus police.


alternet--2020-12-27--The Justice Department sues Walmart — accuses it of illegally dispensing opioids

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
More than two years after the federal government was preparing to indict Walmart on charges of illegally dispensing opioids , the U.S. Department of Justice is finally taking action .
But it 's seeking a financial penalty , not the criminal sanction prosecutors had pushed for .
On Tuesday , the Department of Justice brought a civil suit against Walmart in U.S. District Court in Delaware , accusing the retailing behemoth of illegally dispensing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health crisis that has led to the deaths of around half a million Americans since 1999 .
The government accuses the company , which operates one of the biggest pharmacy chains in the country , of knowingly filling thousands of invalid opioid prescriptions , failing to alert the government to dangerous or excessive prescriptions , and pushing pharmacists to work faster and look the other way in order to boost corporate profits .
By law , pharmacists are prohibited from filling prescriptions they know are not for legitimate medical needs .
“ Walmart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but made little effort to ensure that it complied with them , '' the government said in its suit .
Walmart applied “ enormous pressure '' on pharmacists to fill prescriptions as fast as they could , while preventing them from halting prescriptions they knew came from bad doctors , the government said .
When Walmart pharmacists warned headquarters in Bentonville , Arkansas , about doctors who operated “ known pill mills , '' did “ not practice real medicine '' and had “ horrendous prescribing practices , '' headquarters ignored their pleas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suit .
“ The Justice Department 's investigation is tainted by historical ethics violations , and this lawsuit invents a legal theory that unlawfully forces pharmacists to come between patients and their doctors , and is riddled with factual inaccuracies and cherry-picked documents taken out of context , '' the company said in a statement .
In October , aware that a government suit was likely , Walmart took the highly unusual step of preemptively suing the Justice Department .
The company argued that it did nothing wrong and , there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unethically .
According to Walmart , the federal prosecutors used the threat of a criminal case to try to negotiate higher civil penalties .
( Prosecutors deny that claim . )
The case against Walmart originated in the summer of 2016 , with an investigation of two Texas doctors , Howard Diamond and Randall Wade , who were prescribing opioids on a vast scale .
Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Texas eventually brought cases against the pair , accusing them of contributing to multiple deaths .
The doctors were subsequently convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade sentenced to 10 years in prison and Diamond to 20 years .
That case uncovered evidence that led prosecutors to investigate Walmart itself .
In 2018 , Joe Brown , the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Texas , sought to criminally indict the company over its opioid practices , as detailed in a ProPublica story in March .
During this period , as Walmart tried to fend off a criminal case , its lawyers expressed willingness to discuss a civil settlement .
The company “ stands ready to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any potential conduct of its employees that merits a civil penalty , '' Jones Day partner Karen Hewitt wrote in August 2018 to the head of the criminal division of the Justice Department .
The Texas prosecutors were unswayed by Walmart 's arguments .
Joined by the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration , Brown 's team traveled to Justice Department headquarters in Washington to make an impassioned plea to bring the criminal case .
But Trump appointees at the highest levels of the department — including the deputy attorneys general at different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — stymied the attempt , dictating that Walmart could not be indicted .
( Rosen recently was named acting attorney general . )
When prosecutors sought to criminally prosecute a Walmart manager , top officials in the Trump Justice Department prevented that , too .
The Justice Department then dragged out civil settlement negotiations .
The delays prompted Josh Russ , the head of the civil division in the Eastern District of Texas who had urged bringing a civil suit years ago , to resign in protest .
“ Corporations can not poison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stern and swift action when Americans die , '' Russ wrote in his resignation letter in October 2019 .
This week 's suit largely echoes the allegations that the Eastern District of Texas had made in seeking a criminal case .
Legal officials can in some circumstances pursue the same allegations either criminally or civilly , with a higher burden of proof for prosecutors and stiffer potential penalties for defendants when it comes to criminal cases .
In the new suit , prosecutors said Walmart pharmacists routinely filled prescriptions from known “ pill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly told their patients to go to Walmart pharmacies , the complaint alleges .
Walmart filled prescriptions from doctors even when its pharmacists knew that other pharmacies had stopped filling prescriptions from those doctors .
The suit also details that Walmart 's compliance unit based out of its headquarters collected “ voluminous '' information that its pharmacists were regularly being served invalid prescriptions , but “ for years withheld that information '' from its pharmacists .
In fact , the compliance department often sent the opposite message .
When a regional manager received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he asked , “ Does your team pull out any insights from these we need to highlight ? ''
In an email cited in the suit , which was first reported by ProPublica , a director of Health and Wellness Practice Compliance at Walmart , responded , “ Driving sales and patient awareness is a far better use of our Market Directors and Market manager 's time . ''
Walmart headquarters regularly put pressure on pharmacists to work faster .
Managers pushed pharmacists because “ shorter wait times keep patients in store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle of seconds '' and that “ wait times are our Achilles heel ! ''
according to the suit .
Pharmacists said the pressure and Walmart 's thin staffing “ does n't allow time for individual evaluation of prescriptions , '' the suit says .
In May , two months after ProPublica published its story , Brown , the U.S. attorney who had pushed for criminal prosecution of Walmart , left his job abruptly .
His resignation letter cited the need to “ win the fight against opioid abuse in order to save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players both big and small must meet equal justice under the law . ''
Brown did not return a call seeking comment .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
More than two years after the federal government was preparing to indict Walmart on charges of illegally dispensing opioids, the U.S. Department of Justice is finally taking action. But it's seeking a financial penalty, not the criminal sanction prosecutors had pushed for.
On Tuesday, the Department of Justice brought a civil suit against Walmart in U.S. District Court in Delaware, accusing the retailing behemoth of illegally dispensing and distributing opioids, helping to fuel a health crisis that has led to the deaths of around half a million Americans since 1999.
The government accuses the company, which operates one of the biggest pharmacy chains in the country, of knowingly filling thousands of invalid opioid prescriptions, failing to alert the government to dangerous or excessive prescriptions, and pushing pharmacists to work faster and look the other way in order to boost corporate profits.
By law, pharmacists are prohibited from filling prescriptions they know are not for legitimate medical needs. “Walmart was well aware of these rules, but made little effort to ensure that it complied with them," the government said in its suit.
Walmart applied “enormous pressure" on pharmacists to fill prescriptions as fast as they could, while preventing them from halting prescriptions they knew came from bad doctors, the government said. When Walmart pharmacists warned headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, about doctors who operated “known pill mills," did “not practice real medicine" and had “horrendous prescribing practices," headquarters ignored their pleas, the lawsuit asserts.
Walmart denounced the suit. “The Justice Department's investigation is tainted by historical ethics violations, and this lawsuit invents a legal theory that unlawfully forces pharmacists to come between patients and their doctors, and is riddled with factual inaccuracies and cherry-picked documents taken out of context," the company said in a statement. In October, aware that a government suit was likely, Walmart took the highly unusual step of preemptively suing the Justice Department. The company argued that it did nothing wrong and, there, too, accused the government of acting unethically. According to Walmart, the federal prosecutors used the threat of a criminal case to try to negotiate higher civil penalties. (Prosecutors deny that claim.)
The case against Walmart originated in the summer of 2016, with an investigation of two Texas doctors, Howard Diamond and Randall Wade, who were prescribing opioids on a vast scale. Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Texas eventually brought cases against the pair, accusing them of contributing to multiple deaths. The doctors were subsequently convicted of illegal distribution of opioids, with Wade sentenced to 10 years in prison and Diamond to 20 years. That case uncovered evidence that led prosecutors to investigate Walmart itself.
In 2018, Joe Brown, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, sought to criminally indict the company over its opioid practices, as detailed in a ProPublica story in March. During this period, as Walmart tried to fend off a criminal case, its lawyers expressed willingness to discuss a civil settlement. The company “stands ready to engage in a principled and reasoned dialogue concerning any potential conduct of its employees that merits a civil penalty," Jones Day partner Karen Hewitt wrote in August 2018 to the head of the criminal division of the Justice Department.
The Texas prosecutors were unswayed by Walmart's arguments. Joined by the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Brown's team traveled to Justice Department headquarters in Washington to make an impassioned plea to bring the criminal case.
But Trump appointees at the highest levels of the department — including the deputy attorneys general at different times, Rod Rosenstein and Jeffrey Rosen — stymied the attempt, dictating that Walmart could not be indicted. (Rosen recently was named acting attorney general.) When prosecutors sought to criminally prosecute a Walmart manager, top officials in the Trump Justice Department prevented that, too.
The Justice Department then dragged out civil settlement negotiations. The delays prompted Josh Russ, the head of the civil division in the Eastern District of Texas who had urged bringing a civil suit years ago, to resign in protest. “Corporations cannot poison Americans with impunity. Good sense dictates stern and swift action when Americans die," Russ wrote in his resignation letter in October 2019.
This week's suit largely echoes the allegations that the Eastern District of Texas had made in seeking a criminal case. Legal officials can in some circumstances pursue the same allegations either criminally or civilly, with a higher burden of proof for prosecutors and stiffer potential penalties for defendants when it comes to criminal cases.
In the new suit, prosecutors said Walmart pharmacists routinely filled prescriptions from known “pill mill" doctors. Sometimes those doctors explicitly told their patients to go to Walmart pharmacies, the complaint alleges. Walmart filled prescriptions from doctors even when its pharmacists knew that other pharmacies had stopped filling prescriptions from those doctors.
The suit also details that Walmart's compliance unit based out of its headquarters collected “voluminous" information that its pharmacists were regularly being served invalid prescriptions, but “for years withheld that information" from its pharmacists.
In fact, the compliance department often sent the opposite message. When a regional manager received a list of troubling prescriptions from headquarters, he asked, “Does your team pull out any insights from these we need to highlight?"
In an email cited in the suit, which was first reported by ProPublica, a director of Health and Wellness Practice Compliance at Walmart, responded, “Driving sales and patient awareness is a far better use of our Market Directors and Market manager's time."
Walmart headquarters regularly put pressure on pharmacists to work faster. Managers pushed pharmacists because “shorter wait times keep patients in store," that this was a “battle of seconds" and that “wait times are our Achilles heel!" according to the suit. Pharmacists said the pressure and Walmart's thin staffing “doesn't allow time for individual evaluation of prescriptions," the suit says.
In May, two months after ProPublica published its story, Brown, the U.S. attorney who had pushed for criminal prosecution of Walmart, left his job abruptly. His resignation letter cited the need to “win the fight against opioid abuse in order to save our country" and added that “players both big and small must meet equal justice under the law." Brown did not return a call seeking comment.


alternet--2020-12-27--Court records take us inside Trump and Barr's last-minute killing spree

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
In its hurry to use its final days in power to execute federal prisoners , the administration of President Donald Trump has trampled over an array of barriers , both legal and practical , according to court records that have not been previously reported .
Officials gave public explanations for their choice of which prisoners should die that misstated key facts from the cases .
They moved ahead with executions in the middle of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the gurney while lawyers worked to remove a court order .
They executed a second prisoner while an appeal was still pending , leaving the court to then dismiss the appeal as “ moot '' because the man was already dead .
They bought drugs from a secret pharmacy that failed a quality test .
They hired private executioners and paid them in cash .
The unprecedented string of executions is often attributed to Attorney General William P. Barr , and his role was instrumental : It was Barr 's signature that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injection drug , his quotes that trumpeted the execution announcements and his position as attorney general that holds the ultimate authority in capital cases .
( Barr is resigning effective Wednesday . )
But a ProPublica review of internal government records shows that Barr did not act alone .
The push to resume federal executions for the first time since 2003 long predates Barr , with groundwork beginning as far back as 2011 and accelerating after Trump took office in 2017 .
It could not have happened without the help of Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prisons ; two professors who endorsed the government 's injection method ; conservative Supreme Court justices who dismissed final appeals ; and Trump himself , who encouraged the executions and declined to commute them .
Trump and his surrogates do n't shy away from this .
Throughout the campaign they highlighted the executions as a contrast to Joe Biden 's opposition to the death penalty , reinforcing Trump 's “ law and order '' message .
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany even invoked the execution of Daniel Lee , who fell in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renounced those beliefs decades ago , to defend Trump after he declined to disavow white supremacists in the first debate .
“ The activation of the death penalty and appearance of being tough on crime played into the administration 's political strategy — the same political strategy that pushed for separating children and parents and using force against peaceful demonstrators , '' said Robert Dunham , executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center , a nonprofit that tracks executions .
“ An administration which is concerned about the rule of law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court challenges to proceed and would not have attempted to carry out executions under a procedure that could be declared unlawful . ''
The Justice Department has killed 10 people since July , with three more executions scheduled before Biden 's inauguration .
Most every federal agency is rushing to wrap up unfinished business , cementing policy objectives in ways that will make them harder for the incoming president to unwind .
But the Justice Department 's pressing forward with executions , even after the election of a new president who opposes them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and BOP declined to comment .
In a statement , the Justice Department said : “ Seeking the death penalty and carrying out capital sentences is not a political issue , nor have political considerations influenced the department 's decisions .
The death penalty is a law enforcement and public safety issue , and the department is obligated to carry forward these sentences regardless of who is the president or the attorney general . ''
“ Death Penalty All the Way '' A slim and shrinking majority of Americans support capital punishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it remains popular with Republicans , especially white evangelicals .
That coincides with the strongest base of support for Trump , who , in 1989 , famously bought full-page ads in New York newspapers demanding the death penalty for five young Black and Latino men who were wrongly accused of attacking a white female jogger in Central Park .
“ Death penalty all the way , '' Trump said at a February 2016 campaign event in New Hampshire .
“ I 've always supported the death penalty .
I do n't even understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , the Justice Department had n't executed anyone since 2003 .
This long interruption was as much practical as legal .
A drug that most states and the federal government used in lethal injections , a sedative called sodium pentothal , became unavailable because the sole American manufacturer stopped making it .
The drug shortage thwarted the Obama administration 's plan to execute convicted murderer Jeffery Paul .
States began using a similar drug called pentobarbital , and in 2011 federal prison officials observed several state executions , according to court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began , his first attorney general , Jeff Sessions , wanted to resolve these issues so that BOP could resume executions .
Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Weinsheimer said in a January 2020 deposition that Sessions began “ conversations with staff and BOP to move forward on that . ''
One of the staffers involved was Matthew Whitaker , according to Weinsheimer .
Whitaker , who briefly led the Justice Department between Sessions and Barr , did n't respond to requests for comment .
BOP made plans to use pentobarbital .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its use in executions .
States resorted to using “ compounding pharmacies , '' which mix ingredients for custom-made drugs .
BOP planned to import powdered pentobarbital from a “ foreign FDA-registered facility '' but later turned to a domestic bulk manufacturer .
It also hired a compounding pharmacy to create an injectable solution .
The government has guarded vendor identities , since public scrutiny could pressure them to back out .
A sample of the compounding pharmacy 's solution failed a quality test by an outside lab .
But according to Weinsheimer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lab , not the compound itself , and sent a new batch to a different lab .
BOP also explored using a different drug : the opioid fentanyl .
In a March 2018 memo , then-BOP Director Mark S. Inch said BOP found a fentanyl supplier but warned “ there may be negative publicity associated with using a drug to which so many Americans are addicted . ''
For unclear reasons , BOP planned to have the executions carried out by two private contractors , rather than government employees .
The government wo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profession , and it pays them in cash .
“ If we did n't pay them in cash , '' a BOP lawyer said in a deposition , “ they probably would n't participate . ''
BOP officials knew their new drug choice would face resistance in court ; lawyers have argued that pentobarbital would flood prisoners ' lungs with froth and foam , inflicting pain and terror akin to a death by drowning .
BOP worked to fend off those concerns with expert witnesses who would say the drug was humane .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors consider it unethical to have anything to do with executions .
The American Medical Association and other professional groups prohibit any participation , including the “ rendering of technical advice . ''
“ Doctors are experts in unkilling , we are not experts in killing , '' said Dr. Joel Zivot , an anesthesiologist at Emory University who has testified that lethal injection of pentobarbital simulates death by drowning .
“ This is why lethal injection is so problematic .
It impersonates a medical act , but it 's not about medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment .
An execution chamber is not an operating room . ''
The Justice Department would later claim that “ BOP consulted with medical professionals '' ( plural ) .
That is not exactly true .
BOP engaged two expert witnesses .
The first , Craig W. Lindsley , is a professor of chemistry and pharmacology at Vanderbilt University .
He is not a physician or licensed care provider ; he has a Ph.D. , not an M.D .
In May 2017 , Lindsley wrote a two-page report for BOP stating that pentobarbital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would n't feel a thing .
He concluded , “ Of all the available options and protocols in use today , I believe this protocol to be the most humane . ''
Lindsley declined to be interviewed , citing Justice Department instructions .
He did not disclose his compensation , but he was hired through a contract with a consulting firm called Elite Medical Experts that the Justice Department paid $ 22,000 in the same month as Lindsley 's report .
The company 's CEO , Dr. Burton Bentley II , did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's second expert witness was a medical doctor : retired California anesthesiologist Joseph F. Antognini .
Antognini has said he personally opposes the death penalty as a Catholic .
But he also said he believes states have a right to his advice , comparing it to criminal defendants ' right to a lawyer .
Antognini has not addressed how he squares his testimony supporting executions with his Hippocratic oath .
He did raise ethical considerations when he was asked to compare lethal injection to poison gas ( a comparison between methods , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recommending one method of execution over another , I guess that 's an ethical issue for me , '' he said in a deposition .
Antognini 's rare position as a doctor vouching for lethal injection has made him a valuable witness in capital cases , including a Missouri case that later reached the Supreme Court .
Antognini charges $ 400 an hour , $ 2,000 for a deposition , $ 4,000 per day in court and $ 2,000 per travel day .
In a deposition in the Missouri case , which involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testified that pentobarbital would make the prisoner unconscious within 30 seconds and people ca n't suffer while they 're unconscious .
“ Can you explain to me how you would have suffering in somebody who is unconscious ? ''
Antognini said .
“ I do n't see how that can happen based on my understanding of how all this works . ''
Yet just a few minutes earlier Antognini had acknowledged , “ We do n't know how anesthetics work . ''
Scientists understand how the drugs act in the brain on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not how they produce unconsciousness .
The Supreme Court accepted Antognini 's pentobarbital testimony .
Other courts have been skeptical , ascribing his views “ little or no weight . ''
Reached by phone , Antognini said he was busy and agreed to talk at a later time .
When that time came , Antognini declined to comment .
“ I wish you all a very merry Christmas , '' he said , and hung up .
By the summer of 2019 , BOP determined that its drug supply was secure and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency gave Barr a list of 14 prisoners , out of about 60 on death row , who had exhausted their appeals .
The Justice Department has refused to disclose this list .
( Court records include a list from 2017 with 10 names , but they must not overlap entirely because two of the prisoners who Barr chose in 2019 were not on the earlier list . )
Barr decided whom to execute with the help of the then-deputy attorney general , Jeffrey Rosen ( set to become the acting attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Timothy Shea ( who later became acting U.S. attorney in Washington and now leads the Drug Enforcement Administration ) .
The officials mulled executing all 14 but decided to start with five .
They chose the five , according to Weinsheimer 's deposition , for the same reason that Barr would publicly announce on July 25 , 2019 : They were “ convicted of murdering , and in some cases torturing and raping , the most vulnerable in our society — children and the elderly . ''
“ There was an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the 14 , '' Weinsheimer said .
“ This was an aggravating factor that seemed to apply . ''
In fact , that was n't true .
Barr 's summary of the case of Daniel Lee incorrectly said he “ murdered a family of three , including an 8-year-old girl . ''
The undisputed evidence was that Lee refused to kill the girl , so his co-defendant did .
The co-defendant was sentenced to life in prison , while Lee was sentenced to death .
Weinsheimer said he did n't know if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdered children or the elderly .
There were , according to a review by ProPublica .
Barr 's announcement also justified the executions on the basis that “ we owe it to the victims and their families . ''
This also was not true in Lee 's case : Family members of Lee 's victims have publicly come out against executing him ( as have the prosecutor and judge ) .
The families of the four other prisoners ' victims supported the executions .
In any event , the Justice Department did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who to kill , Weinsheimer said in his deposition .
The Justice Department also did n't review the prisoners ' physical or mental health as part of its selection , according to Weinsheimer .
One of the five , Alfred Bourgeois , had an IQ between 70 and 75 , and his lawyers argued he is intellectually disabled .
Another , Wesley Purkey , suffered from schizophrenia , dementia and Alzheimer 's disease , which his lawyers said made him unable to understand the reason for his execution .
Weinsheimer said the Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the order that the prisoners were convicted , with the oldest first .
However , they were not the oldest capital convictions , according to ProPublica 's review .
As for the executions ' timing , Barr 's announcement did not explain why , after a 17-year hiatus , the first three executions were scheduled within one week of each other .
BOP officials voiced concern that these back-to-back executions would put more stress on their staff , the agency 's lawyer said in a deposition .
( After a 2014 lethal injection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state 's investigation concluded that one contributing factor was having two executions scheduled that day . )
Nevertheless , BOP 's lawyer said the agency booked three executions in one week because of “ guidance from the attorney general . ''
Weinsheimer denied that Barr gave a “ direction '' on how to schedule the executions .
Even prisoners who have exhausted their post-conviction appeals can go back to court to try to stop their execution once a date is set .
A federal judge in Washington put the executions on hold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April .
Barr swiftly rescheduled the executions for Lee , Purkey and Dustin Honken , in a span of four days in July .
In this announcement , Barr cut two from the original five ( Bourgeois and Lezmond Mitchell ) , and added a new prisoner , Keith Nelson .
The unifying theme , he said , was “ murdering children , '' repeating his inaccurate summary of Lee 's crime .
On the day Lee was supposed to be executed , the judge in Washington ordered a new injunction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so the Justice Department went to the Supreme Court .
The Supreme Court 's conservative majority has been consistently hostile to last-ditch reprieves in capital cases .
“ Courts should police carefully against attempts to use such challenges as tools to interpose unjustified delay , '' Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2019 case ( the Missouri execution that featured Antognini 's testimony ) .
The conservatives have been equally unsympathetic to objections to lethal injection , considering that the court never found a constitutional problem with “ traditionally accepted methods '' such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death , '' Gorsuch wrote in the Missouri case , “ something that , of course , is n't guaranteed to many people , including most victims of capital crimes . ''
Early on July 14 , five justices ruled that Lee 's execution could go ahead , saying that he had “ not made the showing required to justify last-minute intervention . ''
Technically , Lee 's death warrant had expired at midnight , but the government issued a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ execution around 4 a.m. Lee 's lawyers protested that there was still a separate court order that the Supreme Court had n't addressed , so officers left Lee on the gurney while government lawyers worked to wipe out that last obstacle .
“ That cautious step , taken to ensure undoubted compliance with court orders , is irreconcilable with the suggestion that the department 'rushed ' the execution or disregarded any law , '' Rosen , the deputy attorney general , wrote in a July op-ed .
Less than an hour after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request , Lee was dead .
“ Today , Lee finally faced the justice he deserved , '' Barr said in a statement .
Later that day , at a White House press conference , Trump referred to Lee 's execution as part of his attack on the Democratic Party platform .
“ Abolish completely the death penalty , '' he said .
“ You know what happened today with regard to the death penalty . ''
Trump 's campaign was more explicit in an email blast the next day .
“ President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an evil killer , '' the campaign told supporters .
“ With the Trump administration slated to administer total justice to three more child murderers and rapists in the coming weeks , Biden should explain why they should be protected from paying the ultimate price for their evil , horrific crimes . ''
That same day , July 15 , Purkey was scheduled to die .
Again after 2 a.m. , a sharply divided Supreme Court lifted the outstanding court orders .
Purkey 's lawyers rushed to federal district court for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Alzheimer 's and schizophrenia left Purkey unable to understand his sentence .
But the Justice Department made clear that it would not wait to let that petition play out .
In a “ courtesy notice '' emailed to one of Purkey 's lawyers at 2:03 a.m. on July 16 , a senior Justice Department official said the execution would go forward at 4 a.m. , despite the new court filing .
“ Your colleague asked me whether the govt would delay the execution to allow the judge … to consider the stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the solicitor general , said in the email .
“ In light of the Supreme Court 's orders today and on Tuesday morning , the government will not delay the execution further .
Absent a court order barring the execution , the govt intends to proceed . ''
The judge , in fact , did say the execution should halt while he considered the motion , but he swiftly denied it , and chastised Purkey 's lawyers for “ procedural gamesmanship . ''
“ Despite the risk of irreparable harm to Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not weigh in his favor , '' wrote the judge , James R. Sweeney II , who was appointed by Trump in 2017 .
Sweeney 's brief order did not specify what equities he weighed , but the government had argued that Purkey 's sentence had already been upheld multiple times .
As Purkey 's lawyers rushed to appeal , BOP went ahead with placing an IV in Purkey 's arm .
He was dead before the appeals court made its ruling .
The court later dismissed Purkey 's appeal as “ moot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Honken died the next day , the third that week .
As prisoners desperately fought the government 's execution plans in court , they argued that overdosing on pentobarbital would be so excruciating that even death by firing squad would be less painful .
Justice Department lawyers chafed at the suggestion .
In response , they said firing squads were “ more primitive '' than lethal injection , and reintroducing them would be a “ regressive change . ''
Two weeks later , however , the agency took steps to do just that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change to authorize execution methods besides lethal injection , including firing squads , which remain legal in three states .
“ This proposed rule would provide the federal government with greater flexibility to conduct executions in any manner allowed by federal law , '' the agency said .
“ The proposed rule would therefore forestall potential future arguments by prisoners in litigation . ''
The proposal made other tweaks to the department 's regulations to address issues raised in litigation — not exactly admitting error , but tacitly acknowledging cracks in the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was formally signed by Barr , its point person was Laurence E. Rothenberg , a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy .
Though he is a career employee , Rothenberg 's LinkedIn profile picture shows him standing proudly with Barr , and he has staked out a public position supporting the death penalty .
In a 2004 law journal article ( also published by the conservative Federalist Society ) , Rothenberg described the death penalty as “ intrinsically just . ''
He also defended executing juvenile offenders against claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In another article , from 2006 , Rothenberg and a Justice Department colleague attacked common critiques of the death penalty .
“ The extent of racial disparities in capital cases in the United States has been vastly exaggerated , '' they wrote .
Rothenberg has said that his criminal justice views are shaped by a family tragedy .
“ I also have a personal interest in , and commitment to , this work , as the son of a murder victim , '' he said in 2009 congressional testimony about a victims rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents were shot , his father fatally , on a trip to the Virgin Islands .
The shooter was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison .
The regulation became final the day after Thanksgiving .
For the next round of executions , Barr 's announcement simply said that the two prisoners , William LeCroy and Christopher Vialva , were “ convicted of murder . ''
He gave no other reason or explanation for their selection .
Earlier this month , the Justice Department executed Vialva 's co-defendant , Brandon Bernard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and did not pull the trigger .
The prosecutor and five of the nine all-white jurors who convicted Bernard , who is Black , have since said his life should be spared .
The reality star Kim Kardashian tried unsuccessfully to convince Trump to commute his sentence .
At the federal death row facility in Terre Haute , Indiana , the inmates are allowed to leave each other bequests , according to The New York Times .
Alfred Bourgeois received his friend Bernard 's wrist watch for the single day before it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strapped to a gurney in the middle of a green-tiled room , an IV in his arm .
As the pentobarbital flowed , Bourgeois ' stomach heaved and popped , according to George Hale , a public radio reporter who witnessed the execution .
The apparent gasping for breath was consistent with how lawyers have described the drowning sensation that the injection could cause .
Bourgeois ' death took 28 minutes , almost twice as long as Bernard 's .
Hale said , “ If Alfred Bourgeois was suffering that night , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are three more federal executions scheduled in January — eight , six and five days before Biden 's inauguration .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
In its hurry to use its final days in power to execute federal prisoners, the administration of President Donald Trump has trampled over an array of barriers, both legal and practical, according to court records that have not been previously reported.
Officials gave public explanations for their choice of which prisoners should die that misstated key facts from the cases. They moved ahead with executions in the middle of the night. They left one prisoner strapped to the gurney while lawyers worked to remove a court order. They executed a second prisoner while an appeal was still pending, leaving the court to then dismiss the appeal as “moot" because the man was already dead. They bought drugs from a secret pharmacy that failed a quality test. They hired private executioners and paid them in cash.
The unprecedented string of executions is often attributed to Attorney General William P. Barr, and his role was instrumental: It was Barr's signature that authorized the use of a new lethal injection drug, his quotes that trumpeted the execution announcements and his position as attorney general that holds the ultimate authority in capital cases. (Barr is resigning effective Wednesday.)
But a ProPublica review of internal government records shows that Barr did not act alone. The push to resume federal executions for the first time since 2003 long predates Barr, with groundwork beginning as far back as 2011 and accelerating after Trump took office in 2017. It could not have happened without the help of Justice Department lawyers; officials at the Bureau of Prisons; two professors who endorsed the government's injection method; conservative Supreme Court justices who dismissed final appeals; and Trump himself, who encouraged the executions and declined to commute them.
Trump and his surrogates don't shy away from this. Throughout the campaign they highlighted the executions as a contrast to Joe Biden's opposition to the death penalty, reinforcing Trump's “law and order" message. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany even invoked the execution of Daniel Lee, who fell in with skinhead groups as a teenager and renounced those beliefs decades ago, to defend Trump after he declined to disavow white supremacists in the first debate.
“The activation of the death penalty and appearance of being tough on crime played into the administration's political strategy — the same political strategy that pushed for separating children and parents and using force against peaceful demonstrators," said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks executions. “An administration which is concerned about the rule of law and which respects the Constitution would have allowed court challenges to proceed and would not have attempted to carry out executions under a procedure that could be declared unlawful."
The Justice Department has killed 10 people since July, with three more executions scheduled before Biden's inauguration. Most every federal agency is rushing to wrap up unfinished business, cementing policy objectives in ways that will make them harder for the incoming president to unwind. But the Justice Department's pressing forward with executions, even after the election of a new president who opposes them, is uniquely irreversible.
The White House and BOP declined to comment. In a statement, the Justice Department said: “Seeking the death penalty and carrying out capital sentences is not a political issue, nor have political considerations influenced the department's decisions. The death penalty is a law enforcement and public safety issue, and the department is obligated to carry forward these sentences regardless of who is the president or the attorney general."
“Death Penalty All the Way"
A slim and shrinking majority of Americans support capital punishment, according to public polling. But it remains popular with Republicans, especially white evangelicals. That coincides with the strongest base of support for Trump, who, in 1989, famously bought full-page ads in New York newspapers demanding the death penalty for five young Black and Latino men who were wrongly accused of attacking a white female jogger in Central Park.
“Death penalty all the way," Trump said at a February 2016 campaign event in New Hampshire. “I've always supported the death penalty. I don't even understand people that don't."
Until this year, the Justice Department hadn't executed anyone since 2003. This long interruption was as much practical as legal. A drug that most states and the federal government used in lethal injections, a sedative called sodium pentothal, became unavailable because the sole American manufacturer stopped making it. The drug shortage thwarted the Obama administration's plan to execute convicted murderer Jeffery Paul. States began using a similar drug called pentobarbital, and in 2011 federal prison officials observed several state executions, according to court records.
Shortly after Trump's presidency began, his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, wanted to resolve these issues so that BOP could resume executions. Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Weinsheimer said in a January 2020 deposition that Sessions began “conversations with staff and BOP to move forward on that."
One of the staffers involved was Matthew Whitaker, according to Weinsheimer. Whitaker, who briefly led the Justice Department between Sessions and Barr, didn't respond to requests for comment.
BOP made plans to use pentobarbital. But it had also become scarce as manufacturers shunned its use in executions. States resorted to using “compounding pharmacies," which mix ingredients for custom-made drugs.
BOP planned to import powdered pentobarbital from a “foreign FDA-registered facility" but later turned to a domestic bulk manufacturer. It also hired a compounding pharmacy to create an injectable solution. The government has guarded vendor identities, since public scrutiny could pressure them to back out.
A sample of the compounding pharmacy's solution failed a quality test by an outside lab. But according to Weinsheimer, BOP said the problem was the lab, not the compound itself, and sent a new batch to a different lab.
BOP also explored using a different drug: the opioid fentanyl. In a March 2018 memo, then-BOP Director Mark S. Inch said BOP found a fentanyl supplier but warned “there may be negative publicity associated with using a drug to which so many Americans are addicted."
For unclear reasons, BOP planned to have the executions carried out by two private contractors, rather than government employees. The government won't disclose the contractors' names or profession, and it pays them in cash. “If we didn't pay them in cash," a BOP lawyer said in a deposition, “they probably wouldn't participate."
“Killing Is Not a Treatment"
BOP officials knew their new drug choice would face resistance in court; lawyers have argued that pentobarbital would flood prisoners' lungs with froth and foam, inflicting pain and terror akin to a death by drowning. BOP worked to fend off those concerns with expert witnesses who would say the drug was humane.
Finding these experts was challenging because most doctors consider it unethical to have anything to do with executions. The American Medical Association and other professional groups prohibit any participation, including the “rendering of technical advice."
“Doctors are experts in unkilling, we are not experts in killing," said Dr. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist at Emory University who has testified that lethal injection of pentobarbital simulates death by drowning. “This is why lethal injection is so problematic. It impersonates a medical act, but it's not about medicine at all. Killing is not a treatment. An execution chamber is not an operating room."
The Justice Department would later claim that “BOP consulted with medical professionals" (plural). That is not exactly true. BOP engaged two expert witnesses. The first, Craig W. Lindsley, is a professor of chemistry and pharmacology at Vanderbilt University. He is not a physician or licensed care provider; he has a Ph.D., not an M.D. In May 2017, Lindsley wrote a two-page report for BOP stating that pentobarbital will take effect so rapidly the prisoner wouldn't feel a thing. He concluded, “Of all the available options and protocols in use today, I believe this protocol to be the most humane."
Lindsley declined to be interviewed, citing Justice Department instructions. He did not disclose his compensation, but he was hired through a contract with a consulting firm called Elite Medical Experts that the Justice Department paid $22,000 in the same month as Lindsley's report. The company's CEO, Dr. Burton Bentley II, did not respond to requests for comment.
BOP's second expert witness was a medical doctor: retired California anesthesiologist Joseph F. Antognini. Antognini has said he personally opposes the death penalty as a Catholic. But he also said he believes states have a right to his advice, comparing it to criminal defendants' right to a lawyer.
Antognini has not addressed how he squares his testimony supporting executions with his Hippocratic oath. He did raise ethical considerations when he was asked to compare lethal injection to poison gas (a comparison between methods, like the one Lindsley made). “Recommending one method of execution over another, I guess that's an ethical issue for me," he said in a deposition.
Antognini's rare position as a doctor vouching for lethal injection has made him a valuable witness in capital cases, including a Missouri case that later reached the Supreme Court. Antognini charges $400 an hour, $2,000 for a deposition, $4,000 per day in court and $2,000 per travel day.
In a deposition in the Missouri case, which involved the same lethal injection drug, Antognini testified that pentobarbital would make the prisoner unconscious within 30 seconds and people can't suffer while they're unconscious. “Can you explain to me how you would have suffering in somebody who is unconscious?" Antognini said. “I don't see how that can happen based on my understanding of how all this works."
Yet just a few minutes earlier Antognini had acknowledged, “We don't know how anesthetics work." Scientists understand how the drugs act in the brain on a cellular level, he explained, but not how they produce unconsciousness.
The Supreme Court accepted Antognini's pentobarbital testimony. Other courts have been skeptical, ascribing his views “little or no weight."
Reached by phone, Antognini said he was busy and agreed to talk at a later time. When that time came, Antognini declined to comment. “I wish you all a very merry Christmas," he said, and hung up.
“Some Objective Factor"
By the summer of 2019, BOP determined that its drug supply was secure and it was ready to schedule executions. The agency gave Barr a list of 14 prisoners, out of about 60 on death row, who had exhausted their appeals. The Justice Department has refused to disclose this list. (Court records include a list from 2017 with 10 names, but they must not overlap entirely because two of the prisoners who Barr chose in 2019 were not on the earlier list.)
Barr decided whom to execute with the help of the then-deputy attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen (set to become the acting attorney general), and aides including Paul Perkins and Timothy Shea (who later became acting U.S. attorney in Washington and now leads the Drug Enforcement Administration). The officials mulled executing all 14 but decided to start with five.
They chose the five, according to Weinsheimer's deposition, for the same reason that Barr would publicly announce on July 25, 2019: They were “convicted of murdering, and in some cases torturing and raping, the most vulnerable in our society — children and the elderly."
“There was an effort to find some objective factor in looking at the 14," Weinsheimer said. “This was an aggravating factor that seemed to apply."
In fact, that wasn't true. Barr's summary of the case of Daniel Lee incorrectly said he “murdered a family of three, including an 8-year-old girl." The undisputed evidence was that Lee refused to kill the girl, so his co-defendant did. The co-defendant was sentenced to life in prison, while Lee was sentenced to death.
Weinsheimer said he didn't know if there were other death row inmates who murdered children or the elderly. There were, according to a review by ProPublica.
Barr's announcement also justified the executions on the basis that “we owe it to the victims and their families." This also was not true in Lee's case: Family members of Lee's victims have publicly come out against executing him (as have the prosecutor and judge). The families of the four other prisoners' victims supported the executions. In any event, the Justice Department didn't consult victims' family members when deciding who to kill, Weinsheimer said in his deposition.
The Justice Department also didn't review the prisoners' physical or mental health as part of its selection, according to Weinsheimer. One of the five, Alfred Bourgeois, had an IQ between 70 and 75, and his lawyers argued he is intellectually disabled. Another, Wesley Purkey, suffered from schizophrenia, dementia and Alzheimer's disease, which his lawyers said made him unable to understand the reason for his execution.
Weinsheimer said the Justice Department decided to schedule the executions in the order that the prisoners were convicted, with the oldest first. However, they were not the oldest capital convictions, according to ProPublica's review.
As for the executions' timing, Barr's announcement did not explain why, after a 17-year hiatus, the first three executions were scheduled within one week of each other. BOP officials voiced concern that these back-to-back executions would put more stress on their staff, the agency's lawyer said in a deposition. (After a 2014 lethal injection in Oklahoma went gruesomely awry, the state's investigation concluded that one contributing factor was having two executions scheduled that day.) Nevertheless, BOP's lawyer said the agency booked three executions in one week because of “guidance from the attorney general." Weinsheimer denied that Barr gave a “direction" on how to schedule the executions.
“Moot"
Even prisoners who have exhausted their post-conviction appeals can go back to court to try to stop their execution once a date is set. A federal judge in Washington put the executions on hold in November 2019. The appeals court disagreed in April. Barr swiftly rescheduled the executions for Lee, Purkey and Dustin Honken, in a span of four days in July. In this announcement, Barr cut two from the original five (Bourgeois and Lezmond Mitchell), and added a new prisoner, Keith Nelson. The unifying theme, he said, was “murdering children," repeating his inaccurate summary of Lee's crime.
On the day Lee was supposed to be executed, the judge in Washington ordered a new injunction. The appeals court declined to intervene, so the Justice Department went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has been consistently hostile to last-ditch reprieves in capital cases. “Courts should police carefully against attempts to use such challenges as tools to interpose unjustified delay," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2019 case (the Missouri execution that featured Antognini's testimony).
The conservatives have been equally unsympathetic to objections to lethal injection, considering that the court never found a constitutional problem with “traditionally accepted methods" such as hanging, electrocution and firing squad. “The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death," Gorsuch wrote in the Missouri case, “something that, of course, isn't guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes."
Early on July 14, five justices ruled that Lee's execution could go ahead, saying that he had “not made the showing required to justify last-minute intervention." Technically, Lee's death warrant had expired at midnight, but the government issued a new same-day notice and went ahead with the execution around 4 a.m. Lee's lawyers protested that there was still a separate court order that the Supreme Court hadn't addressed, so officers left Lee on the gurney while government lawyers worked to wipe out that last obstacle. “That cautious step, taken to ensure undoubted compliance with court orders, is irreconcilable with the suggestion that the department 'rushed' the execution or disregarded any law," Rosen, the deputy attorney general, wrote in a July op-ed. Less than an hour after a federal appeals court granted the government's request, Lee was dead.
“Today, Lee finally faced the justice he deserved," Barr said in a statement.
Later that day, at a White House press conference, Trump referred to Lee's execution as part of his attack on the Democratic Party platform. “Abolish completely the death penalty," he said. “You know what happened today with regard to the death penalty."
Trump's campaign was more explicit in an email blast the next day. “President Trump ensured total justice for the victims of an evil killer," the campaign told supporters. “With the Trump administration slated to administer total justice to three more child murderers and rapists in the coming weeks, Biden should explain why they should be protected from paying the ultimate price for their evil, horrific crimes."
That same day, July 15, Purkey was scheduled to die. Again after 2 a.m., a sharply divided Supreme Court lifted the outstanding court orders. Purkey's lawyers rushed to federal district court for a new emergency stay on the basis that his Alzheimer's and schizophrenia left Purkey unable to understand his sentence. But the Justice Department made clear that it would not wait to let that petition play out.
In a “courtesy notice" emailed to one of Purkey's lawyers at 2:03 a.m. on July 16, a senior Justice Department official said the execution would go forward at 4 a.m., despite the new court filing. “Your colleague asked me whether the govt would delay the execution to allow the judge … to consider the stay application," Hashim Mooppan, counselor to the solicitor general, said in the email. “In light of the Supreme Court's orders today and on Tuesday morning, the government will not delay the execution further. Absent a court order barring the execution, the govt intends to proceed."
The judge, in fact, did say the execution should halt while he considered the motion, but he swiftly denied it, and chastised Purkey's lawyers for “procedural gamesmanship."
“Despite the risk of irreparable harm to Mr. Purkey, the balance of equities do not weigh in his favor," wrote the judge, James R. Sweeney II, who was appointed by Trump in 2017. Sweeney's brief order did not specify what equities he weighed, but the government had argued that Purkey's sentence had already been upheld multiple times.
As Purkey's lawyers rushed to appeal, BOP went ahead with placing an IV in Purkey's arm. He was dead before the appeals court made its ruling. The court later dismissed Purkey's appeal as “moot" because he was already dead.
Honken died the next day, the third that week.
“A Personal Interest"
As prisoners desperately fought the government's execution plans in court, they argued that overdosing on pentobarbital would be so excruciating that even death by firing squad would be less painful. Justice Department lawyers chafed at the suggestion. In response, they said firing squads were “more primitive" than lethal injection, and reintroducing them would be a “regressive change."
Two weeks later, however, the agency took steps to do just that. The Justice Department proposed a regulatory change to authorize execution methods besides lethal injection, including firing squads, which remain legal in three states. “This proposed rule would provide the federal government with greater flexibility to conduct executions in any manner allowed by federal law," the agency said. “The proposed rule would therefore forestall potential future arguments by prisoners in litigation."
The proposal made other tweaks to the department's regulations to address issues raised in litigation — not exactly admitting error, but tacitly acknowledging cracks in the government's legal foundation.
While the proposal was formally signed by Barr, its point person was Laurence E. Rothenberg, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy. Though he is a career employee, Rothenberg's LinkedIn profile picture shows him standing proudly with Barr, and he has staked out a public position supporting the death penalty.
In a 2004 law journal article (also published by the conservative Federalist Society), Rothenberg described the death penalty as “intrinsically just." He also defended executing juvenile offenders against claims that doing so violates international law.
In another article, from 2006, Rothenberg and a Justice Department colleague attacked common critiques of the death penalty. “The extent of racial disparities in capital cases in the United States has been vastly exaggerated," they wrote.
Rothenberg has said that his criminal justice views are shaped by a family tragedy. “I also have a personal interest in, and commitment to, this work, as the son of a murder victim," he said in 2009 congressional testimony about a victims rights law. In 1974, Rothenberg's parents were shot, his father fatally, on a trip to the Virgin Islands. The shooter was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
The regulation became final the day after Thanksgiving.
“It Didn't Go Well"
For the next round of executions, Barr's announcement simply said that the two prisoners, William LeCroy and Christopher Vialva, were “convicted of murder." He gave no other reason or explanation for their selection.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department executed Vialva's co-defendant, Brandon Bernard. Bernard was 18 at the time and did not pull the trigger. The prosecutor and five of the nine all-white jurors who convicted Bernard, who is Black, have since said his life should be spared. The reality star Kim Kardashian tried unsuccessfully to convince Trump to commute his sentence.
At the federal death row facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, the inmates are allowed to leave each other bequests, according to The New York Times. Alfred Bourgeois received his friend Bernard's wrist watch for the single day before it was his turn to die.
Bourgeois was strapped to a gurney in the middle of a green-tiled room, an IV in his arm. As the pentobarbital flowed, Bourgeois' stomach heaved and popped, according to George Hale, a public radio reporter who witnessed the execution. The apparent gasping for breath was consistent with how lawyers have described the drowning sensation that the injection could cause.
Bourgeois' death took 28 minutes, almost twice as long as Bernard's. Hale said, “If Alfred Bourgeois was suffering that night, he suffered for a long time."
There are three more federal executions scheduled in January — eight, six and five days before Biden's inauguration.


alternet--2020-12-27--Inside Jared Kushner key role behind Trump's flurry of pardons

Jared Kushner , President Donald Trump 's son-in-law and White House Senior Advisor , has played an important role in organizing the flurry of clemency requests the president has received as he enters the last month of his presidency .
Over the last five days , Trump has granted a total of 65 pardons and commutations , including which eliminated convictions and prison sentences for many of his own allies and close acquaintances .
As expected , the president 's executive orders were widely criticized and many legal experts have viewed the avalanche of pardons as an abuse of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involvement in Trump 's orders .
According to HuffPost , inside sources have described Trump 's pardons as a `` free-for-all '' as they explained Kushner 's role .
`` Everyone 's sending emails to Jared , '' an insider source said .
`` If you want to make something happen , go to Jared . ''
The publication also reported that insiders have explained Kushner 's scorekeeping strategy in an effort to monitor who Trump grants pardons .
The source added , `` It 's going to be a free-for-all .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The ones who are going to get pardoned and get to the top of the list are the ones who have representatives , staff or counsel that were loyal to the president . ''
Details about Kushner 's involvement in Trump 's pardons come just days after the president granted a full pardon to his father , Charles Kushner who was convicted back in 2005 on a string of criminal charges including tax evasion , illegal campaign contribution , and witness tampering .
At the time , Kushner had allegedly conspired with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so he could blackmail him , according to NJ.com .
When the walls began to cave in , Kushner ultimately `` admitted to defrauding the IRS of between $ 200,000 and $ 325,000 by filing 16 tax returns that claimed those political contributions as 'office expenses , ' '' according to the New Jersey-based news outlet which also reported that Kushner `` acknowledged that he lied to the Federal Election Commission when he reported $ 385,000 in political contributions from his business partners .
The partners claimed they were unaware of the donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed Kushner 's involvement in Trump 's criminal justice reform efforts and his failure to successfully manage the platform .
`` He obviously led the criminal-justice reform efforts and was supportive of his dad 's case , '' the source said .
`` He 's also gotten emails and requests from people , but in no way is he running or tracking this process . ''

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and White House Senior Advisor, has played an important role in organizing the flurry of clemency requests the president has received as he enters the last month of his presidency.
Over the last five days, Trump has granted a total of 65 pardons and commutations, including which eliminated convictions and prison sentences for many of his own allies and close acquaintances.
As expected, the president's executive orders were widely criticized and many legal experts have viewed the avalanche of pardons as an abuse of power. No insiders are detailing Kushner's involvement in Trump's orders. According to HuffPost, inside sources have described Trump's pardons as a "free-for-all" as they explained Kushner's role.
"Everyone's sending emails to Jared," an insider source said. "If you want to make something happen, go to Jared."
The publication also reported that insiders have explained Kushner's scorekeeping strategy in an effort to monitor who Trump grants pardons. The source added, "It's going to be a free-for-all. He'll let you know where you stand. The ones who are going to get pardoned and get to the top of the list are the ones who have representatives, staff or counsel that were loyal to the president."
Details about Kushner's involvement in Trump's pardons come just days after the president granted a full pardon to his father, Charles Kushner who was convicted back in 2005 on a string of criminal charges including tax evasion, illegal campaign contribution, and witness tampering. At the time, Kushner had allegedly conspired with a female escort to seduce his brother-in-law so he could blackmail him, according to NJ.com.
When the walls began to cave in, Kushner ultimately "admitted to defrauding the IRS of between $200,000 and $325,000 by filing 16 tax returns that claimed those political contributions as 'office expenses,'" according to the New Jersey-based news outlet which also reported that Kushner "acknowledged that he lied to the Federal Election Commission when he reported $385,000 in political contributions from his business partners. The partners claimed they were unaware of the donations."
A White House source also discussed Kushner's involvement in Trump's criminal justice reform efforts and his failure to successfully manage the platform.
"He obviously led the criminal-justice reform efforts and was supportive of his dad's case," the source said. "He's also gotten emails and requests from people, but in no way is he running or tracking this process."


alternet--2020-12-27--Should pregnant women get the COVID-19 vaccine? An immunologist answers 3 pressing questions

I am a physician , and I just got my first shot of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine .
This week I was vaccinated against COVID-19 with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine , which brought to mind some frequently asked questions about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines .
I am a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Virginia , where I care for patients with COVID-19 and conduct research on how best to prevent , diagnose and treat this new infection .
As I interact with patients in the hospital , some mothers and expectant mothers have asked whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine .
Here is what I have said to them .
1 ) Can I get vaccinated if I am pregnant or breastfeeding ?
Yes , you can and should get a COVID-19 vaccine if you are either pregnant or breastfeeding .
An important reason is that COVID-19 is more severe during pregnancy .
In a study of 23,000 pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported pregnant women were 3 and 2.9 times more likely to end up in the ICU or on mechanical ventilation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , that the absolute risk remains low .
Only about one out of 100 pregnant women with COVID-19 is admitted to an ICU .
Vaccines are , in general , safe and well tolerated during pregnancy .
Neither the Pfizer nor Moderna COVID-19 vaccine contains the live SARS-CoV-2 virus , so there is no risk of the pregnant woman or her fetus developing COVID-19 .
These vaccines are safe for another reason .
The mRNA used in both vaccines to stimulate a protective immune response never enters the nucleus of a cell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the DNA that encodes the human genome of the mother or fetus .
The caveat is that safety data is lacking for the COVID-19 vaccines , because pregnant women were intentionally excluded in the phase 3 studies of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines .
In the absence of clinical trial data on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding women , but with the expectation that these vaccines should be safe in these populations , both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended that vaccination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pregnant .
For pregnant women who decide to be vaccinated , any fever associated with vaccination should be treated with acetaminophen , since fever has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes .
There is no concern that the vaccines will interfere with lactation and no reason not to be vaccinated if you are breastfeeding .
2 ) Will I be protected from asymptomatic infection ?
Initial data shows 60 % protection from asymptomatic infection after the first dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine .
It is likely Pfizer will also protect from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet been shown .
This means that your risk of getting an asymptomatic infection is reduced by more than half after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine .
Subjects in the phase 3 study had nasal swabs taken at the time of the second dose of the vaccine .
Of these , 14 of the 15,000 volunteers in the vaccine group and 38 of 15,000 subjects in the placebo group experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection without symptoms – which is called asymptomatic COVID-19 .
[ Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ]
This is evidence that asymptomatic infections are being prevented even after only the first dose .
This is wonderful news , as vaccine-induced protection from asymptomatic infection will facilitate herd immunity and the end of the pandemic .
3 ) Will new versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus succumb to the vaccine ?
Fortunately all of the versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus identified to date are neutralized by the COVID-19 vaccines .
The primary way that these vaccines act is by preventing the spike protein on the exterior of the coronavirus from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cells .
The vaccines do this by triggering the human immune system to produce anti-spike antibodies that attach to the spike protein whenever they encounter it and neutralize the virus .
All 17 versions of the virus tested so far have been neutralized , including the variant that is most common in the United States .
The new variant in the United Kingdom that is likely more easily spread person to person is also unlikely to evade the new vaccines , despite the presence of mutations in the spike glycoprotein .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are multiple sites on the spike protein that antibodies can target to neutralize the virus .
This is being formally tested now .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

I am a physician, and I just got my first shot of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
William Petri, CC BY-SA
William Petri, University of Virginia
This week I was vaccinated against COVID-19 with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which brought to mind some frequently asked questions about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
I am a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Virginia, where I care for patients with COVID-19 and conduct research on how best to prevent, diagnose and treat this new infection. As I interact with patients in the hospital, some mothers and expectant mothers have asked whether it is safe for them to take the vaccine. Here is what I have said to them.
1) Can I get vaccinated if I am pregnant or breastfeeding?
Yes, you can and should get a COVID-19 vaccine if you are either pregnant or breastfeeding.
An important reason is that COVID-19 is more severe during pregnancy. In a study of 23,000 pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported pregnant women were 3 and 2.9 times more likely to end up in the ICU or on mechanical ventilation, respectively. I find it reassuring, though, that the absolute risk remains low. Only about one out of 100 pregnant women with COVID-19 is admitted to an ICU.
Vaccines are, in general, safe and well tolerated during pregnancy.
Neither the Pfizer nor Moderna COVID-19 vaccine contains the live SARS-CoV-2 virus, so there is no risk of the pregnant woman or her fetus developing COVID-19. These vaccines are safe for another reason. The mRNA used in both vaccines to stimulate a protective immune response never enters the nucleus of a cell. That means it doesn't interact with the DNA that encodes the human genome of the mother or fetus.
The caveat is that safety data is lacking for the COVID-19 vaccines, because pregnant women were intentionally excluded in the phase 3 studies of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
In the absence of clinical trial data on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding women, but with the expectation that these vaccines should be safe in these populations, both the CDC and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended that vaccination be a personal decision of women who are pregnant.
For pregnant women who decide to be vaccinated, any fever associated with vaccination should be treated with acetaminophen, since fever has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes.
There is no concern that the vaccines will interfere with lactation and no reason not to be vaccinated if you are breastfeeding.
2) Will I be protected from asymptomatic infection?
Initial data shows 60% protection from asymptomatic infection after the first dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. It is likely Pfizer will also protect from asymptomatic infection, but this has not yet been shown. This means that your risk of getting an asymptomatic infection is reduced by more than half after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.
Subjects in the phase 3 study had nasal swabs taken at the time of the second dose of the vaccine. Of these, 14 of the 15,000 volunteers in the vaccine group and 38 of 15,000 subjects in the placebo group experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection without symptoms – which is called asymptomatic COVID-19.
[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
This is evidence that asymptomatic infections are being prevented even after only the first dose. This is wonderful news, as vaccine-induced protection from asymptomatic infection will facilitate herd immunity and the end of the pandemic.
3) Will new versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus succumb to the vaccine?
Fortunately all of the versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus identified to date are neutralized by the COVID-19 vaccines.
The primary way that these vaccines act is by preventing the spike protein on the exterior of the coronavirus from attaching to the ACE2 protein on human cells.
The vaccines do this by triggering the human immune system to produce anti-spike antibodies that attach to the spike protein whenever they encounter it and neutralize the virus.
All 17 versions of the virus tested so far have been neutralized, including the variant that is most common in the United States.
The new variant in the United Kingdom that is likely more easily spread person to person is also unlikely to evade the new vaccines, despite the presence of mutations in the spike glycoprotein. This is in part due to the fact that there are multiple sites on the spike protein that antibodies can target to neutralize the virus. This is being formally tested now.
William Petri, Professor of Medicine, University of Virginia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-12-27--Ted Cruz helped Texas fracking billionaires reap millions in COVID aid relief: report

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal , Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) lent a helping hand to two Texas fracking billionaires by asking for changes to rules that would allow them to acquire a $ 35 million COVID-19 relief loan aimed at helping struggling businesses stay afloat .
The report notes that Texas billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks were on a buying spree as the coronavirus pandemic spread across the country -- buying up bankrupt competitors and investing in others -- only to find they were prohibited from taking advantage of the government-backed loan program as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Journal , they then reached out to Cruz for help .
`` Since spring , businesses controlled by the Wilks brothers have hunted for deals among fracking firms going through bankruptcy and taken or increased stakes in at least six other companies , corporate filings show , '' : the Journal 's Ted Mann and Brody Mullins reported before adding , `` But the industry was already under pressure from international competition and a sagging oil price by the time the pandemic hit , and its mounting woes prompted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington , including Mr. Cruz .
The Republican senator helped convince the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve to change the rules for pandemic loans to ensure oil and gas firms could participate . ''
The report goes on to note that the changes Cruz asked for quickly allowed the wealthy Texas oilmen to cash in .
`` Soon after the U.S. government changed the rules of its lending program in April , a Wilks family company , ProFrac Holdings LLC , applied for and received a $ 35 million loan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes before adding , `` The Wilks brothers are longtime financial backers of Mr. Cruz .
The brothers donated $ 15 million to a super PAC called Keeping the Promise that championed Mr. Cruz 's 2016 presidential campaign , making them the largest financial backers of his political career . ''
Defending Cruz 's actions , a spokesperson for the senator stated the senator `` ... worked to ensure small and medium-sized businesses directly harmed by the economic impacts of this pandemic had access to emergency liquidity , '' said Lauren Blair Aronson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The result of his leadership was a program that has helped about 25 U.S. energy producers , including roughly a dozen in Texas , and helped protect over 300,000 oil and gas jobs in Texas . ''
According to Chris Kuveke of the non-profit BailoutWatch , the COVID dollars were a gift from Cruz to his campaign donors .
`` ProFrac 's loan is blatant misappropriation of taxpayer dollars , '' Kuveke stated .
`` It 's hard not to connect the dots . ''
You can read more here ( subscription @ @ @

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) lent a helping hand to two Texas fracking billionaires by asking for changes to rules that would allow them to acquire a $35 million COVID-19 relief loan aimed at helping struggling businesses stay afloat.
The report notes that Texas billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks were on a buying spree as the coronavirus pandemic spread across the country -- buying up bankrupt competitors and investing in others -- only to find they were prohibited from taking advantage of the government-backed loan program as one of their many companies struggled.
According to the Journal, they then reached out to Cruz for help.
"Since spring, businesses controlled by the Wilks brothers have hunted for deals among fracking firms going through bankruptcy and taken or increased stakes in at least six other companies, corporate filings show,": the Journal's Ted Mann and Brody Mullins reported before adding, "But the industry was already under pressure from international competition and a sagging oil price by the time the pandemic hit, and its mounting woes prompted the Wilkses and others to turn to allies in Washington, including Mr. Cruz. The Republican senator helped convince the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve to change the rules for pandemic loans to ensure oil and gas firms could participate."
The report goes on to note that the changes Cruz asked for quickly allowed the wealthy Texas oilmen to cash in.
"Soon after the U.S. government changed the rules of its lending program in April, a Wilks family company, ProFrac Holdings LLC, applied for and received a $35 million loan, federal records show," the report notes before adding, "The Wilks brothers are longtime financial backers of Mr. Cruz. The brothers donated $15 million to a super PAC called Keeping the Promise that championed Mr. Cruz's 2016 presidential campaign, making them the largest financial backers of his political career."
Defending Cruz's actions, a spokesperson for the senator stated the senator "... worked to ensure small and medium-sized businesses directly harmed by the economic impacts of this pandemic had access to emergency liquidity," said Lauren Blair Aronson, a spokeswoman for the senator. "The result of his leadership was a program that has helped about 25 U.S. energy producers, including roughly a dozen in Texas, and helped protect over 300,000 oil and gas jobs in Texas."
According to Chris Kuveke of the non-profit BailoutWatch, the COVID dollars were a gift from Cruz to his campaign donors.
"ProFrac's loan is blatant misappropriation of taxpayer dollars," Kuveke stated. "It's hard not to connect the dots."
You can read more here (subscription required).