Lawmakers fill government witness list in former House speaker trial
More than a dozen current and former lawmakers could be called to testify in the corruption trial of former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada, who rejected a plea deal in the case, and ex-chief of staff Cade Cothren, federal prosecutors revealed at Tuesday's trial opening.
Current House Speaker Cameron Sexton of Crossville tops the list of potential witnesses, along with House Republican Whip Johnny Garrett of Goodlettsville.
Sexton confirmed early in the investigation that he has been cooperating with prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office. In March, the defense team alleged the government was withholding information about the identity of people who secretly gathered information and that Sexton wore a wire to record conversations between him, Casada and Cothren.
Other House Republicans on the list of witnesses who could be called are Reps. Justin Lafferty of Knoxville, Jay Reedy of Erin, Jason Zachary of Knoxville, Dennis Powers of LaFollette, Scott Cepicky of Culleoka, Tim Rudd and Charlie Baum of Murfreesboro and Esther Helton-Haynes of East Ridge.
Casada and Cothren were indicted in August 2022 on 20 counts of conspiracy, fraud, money laundering, bribery and kickbacks after funneling contracts for political consulting services for House members to a company founded by Cothren called Phoenix Solutions.
Former Chattanooga Rep. Robin Smith, whose home and office were raided by the FBI in 2021 — along with those of Casada and several other lawmakers — pleaded guilty to charges in the case and is expected to testify after agreeing to cooperate with federal prosecutors.
Most of Tuesday was devoted to jury selection, but U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson asked Casada about his understanding of a plea deal offering from the U.S. Attorney's office.
'Did (Casada's attorneys) communicate they received a plea offer from the government?' Richardson asked Casada.
The former House speaker said he was aware of the deal offering and declined to accept it. No mention was made of a similar plea offer to Cothren.
Prosecutors say Casada and former Rep. Smith knew Cothren was operating the firm under the alias 'Matthew Phoenix' but withheld that information from state lawmakers and – in return for kickbacks – directed them to enlist the bogus firm to provide direct mail services.
Cothren resigned from Casada's office following 2019 media reports of his involvement in a racist and sexist texting scandal. Casada later stepped down as House Speaker — his eight months in the position marked the shortest tenure for a Tennessee Speaker of the House — after a 'no confidence' vote from members of the House Republican Caucus.
Richardson clarified with both sets of lawyers the need to conceal Cothren's identity stemmed from the scandal, which enveloped Casada's speakership and led to his resignation along with complaints about heavy-handed management.
'The witnesses wouldn't have done business if they'd known' Cothren was behind the firm, said Taylor Phillips, assistant U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.
'What (House members) cared about was that it was Cade Cothren who was the subject of this enormous scandal,' Phillips said.
Cynthia Sherwood, attorney for Cothren, said Casada and Smith were the driving forces behind the firm's ability to secure business from elected officials.
'None of these witnesses did business with Phoenix Solutions,' Sherwood said. 'They hired Robin Smith, they hired Glen Casada because they were friends.'
Opening arguments in the case are expected to begin Wednesday after jury selection is concluded.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit over sanctuary laws in Chicago and Illinois
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department that accused the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago of unlawfully interfering with President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in Chicago was a setback for Trump's litigation campaign against local "sanctuary" laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. White House and Justice Department spokespersons did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, a Republican seeking to deport millions of immigrants in the country illegally, has sparred with Chicago and other Democratic strongholds over their policies. Democrats, in turn, have criticized the Trump administration's aggressive enforcement tactics, including plainclothes immigration agents covering their faces to hide their identities and arrests of immigrants with no criminal records. Supporters of sanctuary laws have said local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would discourage immigrants who are living in the country illegally from coming forward as victims or witnesses to crimes. The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance in 2012 that stops city agencies and employees from getting involved in civil immigration enforcement or helping federal authorities with such efforts. The Illinois legislature passed a similar state law, known as the TRUST Act, in 2017. The Justice Department sued Chicago and Illinois in February, alleging these laws violate the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it. Jenkins, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, rejected that argument in Friday's ruling, saying the city's and the state's policies are protected by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that states retain significant powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. The Trump administration on Thursday filed a similar lawsuit against New York City over its local sanctuary laws. A similar case against Los Angeles is pending.
Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump voters wanted relief from Medical bills. For millions, the bills are about to get bigger
President Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID -19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated. The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don't renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces. This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills. Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn't pay their medical bills. The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people. But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped. Levey writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago 'sanctuary' laws
CHICAGO (AP) — A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he was pleased with the decision and the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party.
