Monthly Archives: March 2022

Flint water crisis

The ongoing Flint water crisis has taken a toll on residents of this iconic Michigan city, who have been living with lead-tainted tap water.

Brian Kaufman and Ryan Garza, Detroit Free Press

FormerMichigan Gov. Rick Snyder has moved to quash his subpoena to testify at a civil lawsuit related to the Flint water crisis and says he will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if required to take the stand.

But there is a legal question over whether Snyder has already partially waived his Fifth Amendment rights by sitting for a deposition in the civil lawsuit back in 2020, before he was charged criminally.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy is expected to hold a hearing March 15 on whether to quash the subpoena. The civil trial started in late February and could last four months.

Snyderfaces two criminal misdemeanor counts of willful neglect of duty. Both charges were brought in January 2021 by a one-person grand jury.

The former governor has also been subpoenaed to testify in a federal civil lawsuit in Ann Arbor in which the defendants are consultants who did work for the city of Flint related to the city's water supply. They are Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam (LAN) and its parent company, Leo A. Daly Co., and a second company, Veolia Water North America Operating Services.

Veolia has subpoenaed Snyder to testify and he also appears on LAN's witness list.

"Gov. Snyder will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to any question that related to his response to the Flint Water Crisis i.e., all questions that conceivably could be put to him," Snyder attorney Brian Lennon of Grand Rapids said in a late Friday court filing.

More: Consulting firms shift blame as Flint water crisis lawsuit trial begins in federal court

More: Former Gov. Rick Snyder faces 2 criminal charges in Flint water case

Lennon said the criminal charges against Snyder are "exceptionally broad" and "question all of his actions" related to the lead poisoning of Flint's water supply that began in 2014. In the civil case, "the parties have made clear that they intend to ask Gov. Snyder questions ... that go to the same issues underlying his criminal charges."

Lennon said the risk of Snyder being criminally charged "appeared to be low" when he sat for a two-day deposition in the civil case and never invoked his right against self-incrimination. Snyder has not waived that right with respect to the civil case, but the transcript of his deposition could be introduced as evidence, he said.

There is a legal question aboutwhether Snyder has waived his Fifth Amendment rights, at least with respect to questions he answered and topics he discussed during his deposition in the case.

"To be clear, Gov. Snyder maintains his innocence," Lennon said. "But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Fifth Amendment privilege is available to the innocent."

On Monday, former Flint emergency managers Gerald Ambrose and Darnell Earley and former Flint public works employee Howard Croft also filed a joint motionto quash their subpoenas in the civil trial. All three gave depositions in the case in 2020, after criminal charges against them were dismissed in 2019 but before new charges were brought in 2021, under Attorney General Dana Nessel.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com.Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4. Read more on Michigan politics and sign up for our elections newsletter.

Become asubscriber.

See the original post here:
Former Gov. Snyder doesn't want to testify in Flint trial, plans to plead the Fifth - Detroit Free Press

HOUSTON Rusty Hardin, the attorney for Deshaun Watson, said the Houston Texans quarterback will exercise his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when he gives his first deposition in civil litigation involving 22 lawsuits filed by women alleging inappropriate behavior during massage therapy sessions.

The district attorney is also presenting her case to the grand jury Friday. Hardins request to the plaintiffs attorney, Tony Buzbee, was denied, but Hardin said that he has advised Watson not to answer questions.

Hardin emphasized that taking the fifth is not an admission of guilt and that the three-time Pro Bowl passer will be happy to testify when he can.

Its a non-starter because neither I or any lawyer in the free world will allow their client to give testimony in a civil case while those same issues are being heard by a grand jury, Hardin said in a telephone interview with Pro Football Network. Tony Buzbee didnt want to delay. Its unfortunate. Deshaun will be glad to testify when I advise him to.

This is a civil matter. Thats where we believe it should be heard. If Tony Buzbee wants to waste his time asking questions, thats fine. Deshaun will not answer those questions. Deshaun will testify when the grand jury has completed its work.

Watson is facing 10 criminal complaints alleging sexual misconduct. He has not been charged with a crime. He denied wrongdoing in a statement when the first lawsuits were filed. Hardin said in a press conference previously that Watson had consensual sex with some of the plaintiffs.

Search warrants issued in the fall sought access to social media and cash pay accounts Watson allegedly used to pay for massages and listed a potential charge of indecent assault, which is a misdemeanor. The maximum punishment, if convicted, is up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000.

During a recent special hearing requested by Hardin, Harris County District Court Judge Rabeea Collier denied a portion of the motion. Yet, she also stipulated that certain depositions in the 22 active civil lawsuits can be delayed until after April 1.

That date is when the NFL players Houston-based lawyer expressed confidence multiple times that there will be a ruling from law enforcement officials on whether Watson will be charged criminally for alleged sexual misconduct.

Collier did grant part of Hardins request. She also upheld his request to be present for all depositions involving his client. Hardin said that due to his court schedule, he isnt available for the next few weeks.

Collier said that she will uphold the previously agreed upon docket and emphasized that Watsons legal team has already taken 75 hours of depositions, with only six of the 22 civil litigants still to be deposed. She said that plaintiffs who have filed a criminal complaint against Watson and havent been deposed cant depose him until after April 1.

Im allowing you to take Mr. Watsons deposition on case-specific details for those who have not filed a criminal complaint, Collier said.

Only plaintiffs who have been deposed and havent filed criminal charges can begin taking Watsons deposition now. The court ruled that Watson will be questioned under oath within the next 10 days if Hardin is available to be there in person for nine of the 22 plaintiffs.

Denied in part, granted in part, denied as to those plaintiffs that have not filed a criminal complaint against your client, Collier said to Hardin in court. Its granted in part with the plaintiffs that have put a criminal complaint against your client and for the individuals that may fall in between that have not been deposed. That has been granted because those individuals may not ask questions of your client until those plaintiffs are deposed.

Hardin added he had no reason to believe that a ruling wont be determined on Watsons 10 active criminal complaints by April 1 and whether he would be charged or not charged. Eight of the 22 accusers have filed criminal complaints.

We know that the police have forwarded to the district attorneys office their findings and their conclusions, Hardin said.

I dont know whats going to happen on April 1, Collier said.

Hardin, asked by Judge Collier why he believes hell have clarity on criminal charges or no charges by April 1, said thats because the police have submitted their findings to the Harris County District Attorneys office. He added that he expects the investigation to be concluded in weeks, not months.

Hardin had filed a motion requesting that the NFL players deposition be pushed back to no earlier than April 1 because not all 22 complainants have been deposed, which was the original plan for the case.

The criminal investigation could be wrapped up by early April, so Watson could have the remainder of his depositions that month. Thats also prior to the 2022 NFL Draft when, depending on the resolution of his legal situation, Watson could be traded.

The motion emphasized that the criminal investigation of 10 criminal complaints, including eight plaintiffs, hasnt been completed, with no clarity about Watsons status as far as whether he will or wont be charged with a crime.

Law enforcement sources said that no DNA, audio, or video evidence has been found or submitted by police detectives investigating the allegations.

While the legal situation remains unresolved, Watson, who has requested a trade and has a no-trade clause in his $156 million contract, and the Texans are in a holding pattern.

The Texans have been seeking at least three first-round draft picks and a pair of second-round draft picks in exchange for Watson, who led the NFL in passing yards two seasons ago. Could that price drop potentially if his legal situation doesnt improve? Thats obvious.

He remained on the Texans roster last season and was paid his $10.54 million salary. Watson was not placed on the commissioners exempt list but played in no games.

Watson only practiced during a portion of training camp before he and Caserio reached an agreement that he would report to the Texans training facility for individual workouts with the strength and conditioning staff but not participate in practices and meetings.

At the 2022 NFL Scouting Combine, Texans coach Lovie Smith, 63, said he remains hopeful that closure will ultimately be realized for Watson and the AFC South franchise. When that might happen is totally unclear.

I have no idea, Smith said. And the good part about it is time kind of takes care of everything. I just know Deshaun is an excellent football player. Excellent football players need to be playing somewhere in the NFL. Hopefully, that will happen, and if its not with us, its somewhere else. And Im sure as I see in this situation, both of us eventually are going to benefit from the situation, and I just cant wait for that to speed up a little bit.

How important is that? Im agreeing with what you said. Yes, we would like a prompt resolution to it, but Im also a patient man, too, and time normally takes care of everything. We understand this is Year 2, and I know Deshaun wants to play, and it will come to a head. I have faith in that. We just have to give it a little time, and hopefully, everybody will be happy with it. Im sure that will be the case.

While the legal situation continues to unfold, the Texans and NFL teams interested in trading for Watson are monitoring the situation and awaiting clarity.

I would say that situation, weve talked about this with our group, were day to day in terms of handling that, Texans general manager Nick Caserio said during the Combine. Once the information becomes more relevant or prevalent, then well handle it accordingly. My philosophy from the beginning has always been to do the right thing by the Houston Texans organization, and were going to continue to do that here moving forward.

Pro Football Network previously reported that the Washington Commanders and Carolina Panthers remain interested in trading for Watson.

Philadelphia Eagles general manager Howie Roseman previously conducted significant due diligence on Watson before last season, even sending an investigator to Houston to look into the legal situation and contacting Hardin, per sources.

However, Watson has never been inclined to waive his no-trade clause for the Eagles. Moreover, Philadelphia has publicly committed to Jalen Hurts as their quarterback.

As much as the Texans want to trade Watson, they realize that the criminal justice system and civil litigation move slowly. And perhaps the list of teams will grow exponentially if his legal problems are resolved favorably.

Continue reading here:
Deshaun Watson to take fifth amendment Friday in lawsuit deposition; grand jury presentation same day - Pro Football Network

Regardless of your stance on abortion, Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Youre probably wondering how on earth one can even separate Roe v. Wade from abortion. Isnt this the pivotal case of Roe appealing in opposition to Texas law that gives women the right to choose an abortion? Well, it was, but it isnt now.

In fact, Roe is not the case that currently governs abortion legislation; its Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Which is a case that not only challenged and upheld the decision of Roe but shook the already unstable reasoning behind the decision.

But, thats a conversation for another time. Instead, lets look at Roe v. Wade and how it began the stream of flawed judicial thinking on abortion law.

The decisions made in Roe v. Wade

The Court declared that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to privacy via the Fourteenth Amendment that encompasses the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

And their second decision was that this right is not absolute. The right must somehow balance the interests of the government to protect both the mothers life and the unborn childs life and the mothers right to privacy.

The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Due Process Clause that is targeted does not name an explicit right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the interpretation of a right to privacy since 1891.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment

The interpretation of the word liberty, in particular, has eluded to this recognized right of privacy.

While this ruling in favor of abortion falling under a right of privacy is compelling, the reasoning of the court is contradictory at best. Most of the constitutional amendments very clearly protect different aspects of privacy. The difference, though, is that these rights are explicitly protected and not vaguely lumped into an amendment they dont belong in.

Additionally, there is federal legislation to protect medical and health privacy, such as HIPAA and FTC laws. Medical information and decisions cannot be disclosed or enforced unless the interests of the state are for public health and safety.

For instance, various vaccinations are required to attend public schools, and seatbelt laws are in place to protect the public from accidents. Yet, the law explicitly defines these boundaries or the boundaries are very easily inferred.

Abortion was never explicitly protected, nor easily inferred from the language of the amendments used to justify it. Additionally, many states found abortion to conflict with their interest of public safety due to the emotional and physical harm to mothers and the ending of a life.

True and due privacy is protected in the United States under the constitutional amendments, but abortion is nowhere to be found.

For example, the First protects the privacy of your beliefs from the state. The Third and the Fourth protects the privacy of your home and your personal life from the state. The Fourteenth and Fifth state that none of your rights can be violated unless you are found guilty of a crime through due process.

The court then agreed, also, that this right to abortion was not absolute and that states do have some power to regulate abortion. However, the ability of regulation given to the states was very minimal, and even undermined by the vague exception of a maternal health risk.

The deception of exceptions

Justice Blackmun, one of the Justices deliberating Roe, drawing on his own research and speculating rather than any medical evidence being presented in the courtroom, determined whose interests were to be protected for each trimester of pregnancy.

In the first trimester, he determined that the mothers interests of privacy were more important than the states interest in protecting prenatal or maternal life.

In the second trimester, he determined that the state may exercise some liberty with concern to the mothers life as he believed the risks of abortion began to outweigh the risks of pregnancy.

In the third trimester, the state was finally permitted, in Blackmuns reasoning, to regulate or even ban abortion with the interest of the unborn life in mind. Although, only if there were exceptions allowed for when the mothers health was threatened.

There are many issues with these unstable deliberations. The first is the lack of medical evidence presented in the hearing to suggest where the point in which abortion is safer than pregnancy, or vice versa, really is. Secondly, as mentioned in the previous section, the vague health exceptions permitted by the Justice.

While these exceptions seem noble and reasonable at first glance, Blackmun failed to define them in a way that actually grants due powers to the states or properly acts to protect the mother and child. Blackmun acknowledged possible physical and mental health concerns and any adverse effects associated with raising children that may influence these two.

This then begs the question of where the line is drawn.

If the states can regulate or ban abortion in the third trimester but anyone can plead to their doctor for a note saying that raising a child will cause them stress and mental or physical harm, can the states actually regulate abortion in the third trimester?

And if abortion becomes more dangerous in the third trimester than pregnancy, using Blackmuns logic, how extreme do these health concerns need to be in comparison?

This leaves Roe incredibly indefinite and continuously up for interpretation. There are undoubtedly more questions created than those answered.

Even more so, Blackmuns logic has laid the groundwork for other measures of when abortion should and should not be allowed to occur. The most prolific example of this is that of fetal viability.

Fetal viability is the ability of the baby to survive outside of the womb. The issue with such a definition is that the ability of a baby to survive outside of the womb is constantly changing because of advances in technology.

Premature infants are able to survive in the hospital today as early as 23-24 weeks gestation. This is only just over half the time of a full-term pregnancy of 40 weeks gestation.

Who is to say that medicine wont advance even further to care for even earlier infants?

One could argue that fetal viability is then when a baby would be able to survive without the help of a hospital. However, this logic is also flawed as this cannot be determined with certainty in even later pregnancies.

A premature birth is defined as birth prior to 37 weeks gestation, and premature babies are significantly more at risk for needing medical intervention for issues such as feeding and breathing due to underdeveloped organ systems.

Therefore, prematurity is only one month early and leaves an infant at a much higher risk for medical intervention. Blackmuns trimester logic does not even go this far, but fetal viability could take it to such an extent.

Again, where can the line be drawn then, and by what standard?

Context is key

While I do not know whether to entirely disagree with the Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendments intention of protecting privacy, I cannot with full confidence agree. Even if I do like the idea of it.

However, I certainly do not believe for one second that abortion was meant to be encompassed in that right. A quick look at historical context is sufficient in proving this point.

Before Roe, not a single law, case or other authority had suggested the possibility that abortion would fall under Fourteenth Amendment rights. More significantly, in 1868 when the amendment was ratified, 30 out of the 37 states at the time had criminal laws prohibiting abortion.

Additionally, the Ohio legislature passed a criminal law prohibiting abortion at any point after conception only four months after the amendment was ratified. This very clearly suggests that no writer nor supporter of the amendment intended for abortion to be adopted under it.

Many would argue that being forced to have a child when they dont want one would infringe on the Due Process Clauses promise of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to them. This is a valid and compelling defense.

However, recall that the state has interests to protect the public life that compete with the interests of many individuals. Take the vaccination example again. There are many who oppose vaccinations as a whole, but the state deprives them of that liberty because of the apparent public health concern.

In the case of abortion, the state has interests to protect both the mental and physical health of the mother, and the health and life of the unborn child. The Journal of Medical Ethics found that regret and mental distress are much less likely to occur with choosing motherhood than with choosing abortion.

The amendments main purpose, privacy interpretation aside, was to work to correct the injustice of slavery in America. It was one of three post Civil War amendments, and it reversed the Dred v. Scott decision that very wrongly and unconstitutionally declared that African Americans were not U.S. citizens.

The sole purpose of this Due Process clause was to grant African Americans the fair and equal trials that they had been deprived of. The word liberty does refer to the bodily freedom of a citizen, but bodily freedom has never hinted to allowing abortion. This is evident as this bodily freedom may very well be taken away with due process of law.

Life is freedom from capital punishment unless it is taken by due process of law. Liberty is freedom from incarceration unless it is taken by due process of law. Property is freedom from fines or seizure of property unless it is taken by due process of law.

To add insult to injury, no one claims that the Fifth Amendment grants a right to abortion despite the Fourteenth Amendment directly imitating its Due Process Clause. Its an embarrassing contradiction.

The only difference between the two clauses that warranted an additional amendment is who the amendment restricted. The Fifth Amendment included the same Due Process Clause but only leashed the federal government.

The Fourteenth Amendment required that the states also adopt this clause in order to protect African Americans from racist legislation in the wake of the Civil War.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law The Fifth Amendment.

Closing thoughts

I would be lying to you if I didnt say that I opposed abortion. My faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ prohibits room for the intentional ending of what I firmly believe to be a precious human life.

However, I also believe that, from a purely legal standpoint, Roe v. Wade should have never made it to the Supreme Court for deliberation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, when taken into context and compared with its earlier counterpart, cannot be misconstrued as to allow a right to privacy and then abortion under that privacy. Additionally, the context in which the amendment was written does not logically allow for such a conclusion.

Even if this was not so, and a conclusion of a right to abortion could be drawn, Roe did an exceptionally poor job at laying the framework for its execution. No clear lines can be drawn to determine maternal danger and when it is acceptable for states to intervene.

Even more so, this is such a complex issue that should not have been evaluated by people who were not elected but appointed. As I have argued in this article, I do not find this to be a right allowed in the Constitution.

This is even supported by the way that many treat the case. Rather than being treated as a Supreme Court case, it is treated as legislation, as if this is something that the majority of the people believe in. The truth is, the arguments continue to be nearly 50-50.

This division and the historical condemnation of abortion in past laws of the country further prove that abortion would have never made it into the Consitution as a right.

From this deeper analysis of Roe v. Wade, I have come to these conclusions, and I hope that those on either side can recognize the lack of clarity and sense in the decision.

In order for the Federal Government to limit state action in abortion laws, a new amendment, explicity determining this right would have to be drawn up and ratified by the majority of the states. Given the nearly 50-50 division constantly encompassing the country, I see that as a highly unlikely accomplishment.

Therefore, many in support of abortion are scrambling to defend a right that is vaguely and wrongly awarded to them, and they may not even know it. Those who are aware likely know that, without the poor decisions of Roe, they would not be able to justly and rightly achieve this right.

Many fear the overturning of Roe because many states, especially conservative-dominated states, have trigger laws in place that would criminalize abortion. However, there are also many liberal states that will continue to allow abortion if Roe were to vanish.

The states that would allow abortion to continue until their definition of viability include, but are not limited to, the District of Columbia, New York, Washington and New Jersey.

Again, from a personal standpoint, I dont believe that people have the right to decide who lives or dies at any stage in development. However, from a legal standpoint, this is an issue that should be deliberated on by the people and their elected officials.

The Constitution does not grant a right to abortion, at least in the capacity that Roe v. Wade chose to defend it.

There is also too much emphasis on supporting organizations that give abortions purely for the reason of them providing abortions rather than offering to support women through motherhood.

Motherhood may not seem like an option to some because of their economic, mental or physical health status. However, as a society and community, we have a great influence over that.

Many people consider donating to Planned Parenthood so that they can fight to keep their abortion services, but how many of us stop considering donating to women and children in need just as much?

While I am a Christian who believes in having children within a marriage, I think we all need to be more understanding of women who get pregnant from a variety of circumstances. Looking down on these women does not help them or their babies in any way. It does not make them any less worthy of support.

Additionally, there are Christians and practices of other religions who are out there who are against the use of birth control but fail to recognize that its widespread use and encouragement is the lesser evil. Access to and use of other methods would be much more preferable than the use of abortion as a means of birth control.

Read more from the original source:
Overturn Roe - the Spectrum - NDSU The Spectrum

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) A former Tennessee Republican lawmaker pleaded guilty Tuesday to a federal wire fraud charge over allegations she helped carry out a political consulting kickback scheme with a disgraced former state House speaker and his one-time chief of staff, even concocting a phony identity for the company's leader.

Ex-Rep. Robin Smith entered her plea in Nashville federal court under an agreement with prosecutors. The charging document says the Hixson lawmaker, former House Speaker Glen Casada and his then-chief of staff, Cade Cothren, used a political consulting firm to illegally funnel money to themselves through both campaign and taxpayer-funded work, while concealing their involvement in it.

Casada and Cothren are described but not named in the document, which was unsealed Monday and quickly spurred Smith's resignation as a lawmaker. So far, prosecutors have not announced any charges against the other two in the case that centers on claims about a company, Phoenix Solutions, and a fake persona, Matthew Phoenix, used even on an IRS form.

Smith said in a written statement that she intends to cooperate with the authorities.

Once the Department of Justice informed me of the nature of my activities, I took full responsibility for my actions, culminating in my guilty plea, said Smith, who did not respond to reporters' questions while leaving court Tuesday. "There are no excuses. I intend to cooperate fully as a witness with the federal government and do whatever I can to assist the government in this regard.

It remains unclear what agreement Smith and prosecutors might have reached on a recommended sentence. U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson said during the hearing that the maximum sentence for her crime was 20 years in prison. But he also noted that Smith's plea deal includes stipulations about cooperation, without saying what those entail. Her sentencing was set for October.

Prosecutors said in charging documents that Smith devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the citizens of the Middle District of Tennessee and the government of Tennessee of their right to the honest services of a public official."

Casada resigned from the top leadership post in 2019 after revelations he exchanged sexually explicit text messages about women with Cothren years ago. In January 2021, FBI agents searched the homes and offices of several state lawmakers and staffers, including Casada, Smith and Cothren. At the time, federal investigators declined to give a reason for the searches.

The charge against Smith appears to shed some light on the raid. The documents state Cothren launched a political consulting firm called Phoenix Solutions, LLC that was designed to offer mail and consulting services to lawmakers in 2019 with Smith's and Casada's knowledge and support." All three claimed the firm was run by Matthew Phoenix when in fact it was Cothren using a made-up alias, the documents allege.

Authorities say Phoenix Solutions was initially set up to provide mail and consulting political services for lawmakers facing primary election opponents. It performed those services and later sent taxpayer-funded mailings to constituents, from which Phoenix Solutions, a separate company owned by Smith, and another company owned by Casada received almost $52,000 combined in 2020, the documents state.

Smith, Cothren and Casada hid Cothrens involvement in Phoenix Solutions, and hid that Cothren kicked back portions of the profits to Casada and Smith, because they feared the House speaker's office would not approve the company's use and individual lawmakers would not use the firm, either, if that information got out, prosecutors claim.

In 2020, Cothren's then-girlfriend and Cothren exchanged emails as Candice and Matthew to make it appear as though Phoenix Solutions employees needed to secure an outstanding payment that the state hadn't paid, authorities said. That exchange was forwarded to Smith. The girlfriend was not identified.

According to prosecutors, Smith told multiple Republican lawmakers in 2020 that Matthew Phoenix and his associate, Candice, got tired of living in the Washington, D.C. area and decided to move back home to New Mexico, where Phoenix started Phoenix Solutions.

At one point, the documents allege Smith emailed Cothren saying that he may have to assume the role of Matthew again. He replied saying, Matthew, reporting for duty!" and included a GIF of "a salute from Harrison Fords character Han Solo in the movie Star Wars, officials said.

Officials also say Smith provided false information on Matthew Phoenix to current House Speaker Cameron Sexton and other legislative staffers when pushing for payments to Phoenix.

When Smith forwarded those messages to Cothren, she wrote Shhhhhhhhhh, according to court records.

Smith, 58, was elected to the House of Representatives in 2018. She'd previously served as chair of the Tennessee Republican Party and a policy advisor to Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Green.

Casada in November announced he wouldnt run for reelection this year, and would instead run for Williamson County clerk.

Cothren, meanwhile, has informed state campaign finance regulators that he is invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and won't abide by a subpoena in an investigation surrounding a political action committee.

Continued here:
Ex-Tennessee rep pleads guilty to fraud in consulting scheme - Northern Virginia Daily