Spartanburg GOP hosting sheriff debate forum; admission now free following controversy
The event was embroiled in controversy from the moment it was first announced. After Spartanburg County Republican Party Chairman Frank Tiller was asked about people not being charged to attend the event, he responded by calling the potential event guests 'hot, sweaty people, too cheap to purchase a ticket.'
Each candidate was allotted 100 tickets sold at $10, and the other tickets cost $12.50.
According to the Spartanburg County GOP, donors and sponsors helped cover the cost of the forum by assisting in making the event free.
More: NAACP of Spartanburg County hosting forum for candidates running to replace Chuck Wright
More: Former Spartanburg County sheriff, chaplain could face charges following SLED investigation
More: Decision to slash sheriff's salary assailed by county council critics, 'lack of foresight'
On July 4, the county's Republican Party announced via a press release that the event would be free of charge. According to the press release, people who purchased a ticket would receive a refund.
One candidate for the Spartanburg County Sheriff, Adam Crisp, declined to attend the event after Tiller's comments.
On Facebook, Crisp stated that he wouldn't attend and said, 'I believe in treating voters with dignity, not disdain.'
Candidates will run for the county position after the previous sheriff, Chuck Wright, resigned on May 23, following allegations of improper use of a county credit card, as well as an ethics investigation involving Wright's hiring of his son.
On June 12, Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote a letter to the Seventh Circuit Solicitor's Office saying Wright could soon be charged with misconduct of a public officer; use of official position for financial gain; obtaining certain drugs, devices, preparations, or compounds by fraud or deceit; and breach of trust with fraudulent intent.
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division later confirmed an investigation into Wright.
Candidates who will attend the event:
Nick Duncan
Rusty Clevenger
Andy Clark
Randy Hollifield
Joseph Pilato
Ric Stephens
Bill Rhyne
Robert J. Cheeks
This article originally appeared on Herald-Journal: Spartanburg GOP hosting sheriff forum; admission free after controversy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Colorado dentist found guilty of fatally poisoning wife
A Colorado dentist has been found guilty of fatally poisoning his wife. James Craig stood trial for the 2023 murder of his wife, Angela Craig. Prosecutors claimed he purchased arsenic and over-the-counter eye drops and secretly dosed his wife through her protein shakes and gave her a dose of cyanide while she was ill in the hospital. MORE: Woman who dated the dentist who was accused of killing his wife speaks out Angela Craig, 43, was hospitalized three times over the span of 10 days. On March 15, 2023, when she was admitted to the hospital for the last time, she was put on a ventilator. Soon after, the mother of six was declared medically brain dead and taken off life support, officials said. A jury in Arapahoe County found the Aurora dentist guilty of first-degree murder on Wednesday as well as all five other counts, including solicitation to commit tampering with evidence, solicitation to commit perjury and solicitation to commit murder. Prosecutors argued that he murdered his wife to get out of his marriage -- throughout which he was unfaithful -- without hurting his image. The defense, meanwhile, claimed the cheating led Angela Craig to be suicidal and that he was helping to fulfill her wishes. In the weeks before Angela Craig died, authorities said James Craig used a computer at his dental practice and made searches including: "Is there such thing as an undetectable poison?" and "How long does it take to die from arsenic poisoning?" MORE: Grand jury indicts Suzanne Morphew's husband for murder in her death Prosecutors said during the trial that while Angela Craig was hospitalized for the last time, he gave her a dose of cyanide. A toxicology expert who testified during the trial said she had nearly twice the lethal limit of cyanide in her system at the time of her death. Toxicology tests determined Angela Craig died of poisoning from cyanide and tetrahydrozoline, an ingredient commonly found in over-the-counter eye drops, according to the coroner. James Craig did not take the stand and no witnesses were called by the defense during the two-week trial. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Texas Senate once again tries to give the attorney general authority to prosecute election crimes
The Texas Senate voted 17-12 Wednesday to preliminarily approve a bill that would allow the attorney general to independently prosecute election crimes without waiting to be invited by a local district attorney, a long-standing priority for the office's GOP incumbent, Ken Paxton. A similar proposal stalled out just before the finish line during the regular session, with the House and Senate unable to agree on how quickly the attorney general should be allowed to take the case from local authorities. This time around, both chambers are starting from the same spot on that issue, directing the attorney general to immediately step in and take over election fraud cases. But a potential new line of disagreement has opened. In setting the agenda for the Legislature's ongoing special session, Gov. Greg Abbott asked lawmakers to grant this authority to the attorney general with a constitutional amendment, after Texas' highest criminal court ruled in 2021 that the state constitution bars the agency from unilaterally inserting itself into criminal cases. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote from both chambers — including 12 House Democrats — and final signoff from voters to take effect. In the House, Plano GOP Rep. Matt Shaheen took up that call, filing a joint resolution to accompany his bill. Sen. Bryan Hughes, the Mineola Republican carrying the Senate version of the bill, said during a hearing he does not believe a constitutional amendment is necessary. Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat who is running for attorney general, tried to get Hughes' bill thrown out Wednesday on the grounds that it did not comply with the governor's call. Johnson's point of order was overruled by the Senate parliamentarian. Hughes said the Legislature might eventually end up passing a constitutional amendment, but he believed his proposal was 'a clean way to get this done.' Abbott, a Republican who previously served on the Texas Supreme Court, did not respond to an inquiry about whether he would sign a bill if it were not a constitutional amendment. In its 2021 ruling, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution only allows the attorney general to step into a criminal prosecution — election-related or otherwise — at the invitation of the local district or county attorney. Paxton and his political allies say the attorney general's office should have the power to investigate and prosecute allegations of voter fraud because district attorneys in the state's largest and bluest counties won't properly pursue such cases. After the ruling, which was reaffirmed in 2022, Paxton called on the Legislature to 'right this wrong,' arguing cases of fraud would otherwise go unpunished. Evidence of widespread voter fraud is scant. While Paxton's office has opened more than 300 investigations of suspected crimes by voters and election officials, they have successfully convicted only a handful. Voting rights experts say these investigations often ensnare people who made honest mistakes, rather than legitimate schemes to undermine Texas elections. 'We sure don't want to intimidate voters,' Hughes said on the Senate floor Wednesday. 'We want to intimidate cheaters.' At a Senate State Affairs committee hearing last week, Sen. Bob Hall, an Edgewood Republican, asked Hughes if a constitutional amendment was necessary to avoid another court decision striking down the measure as unconstitutional. Hughes pointed to a state statute that says the attorney general 'shall perform other duties as may be required by law,' arguing his proposal would pass constitutional muster because it adds to those duties by mandating that the attorney general 'shall' prosecute election fraud, rather than making it optional as in the law that was struck down in 2021. 'We hope that gives the Court of Criminal Appeals sufficient legal basis to see the constitutionality' of the new law, Hughes said. Andrew Hendrickson, with the ACLU of Texas, said at the hearing he was skeptical that this would successfully sidestep the need for a constitutional amendment. While the court's ruling is often understood to limit what the attorney general can do, it technically took aim at the Legislature for telling the attorney general he could prosecute election crimes in violation of the separation of power protections, Hendrickson said. 'It was the Legislature, by assigning a power that the constitution assigned to another branch of government without amending the constitution first, that creates the problem,' he said. But the makeup of the Court of Criminal Appeals has changed significantly since those rulings in 2021 and 2022, after Paxton vowed political retribution against the judges who found against him. Last year, he helped unseat three longtime incumbents; two more have already said they won't run for reelection in 2026. The lineup for The Texas Tribune Festival continues to grow! Be there when all-star leaders, innovators and newsmakers take the stage in downtown Austin, Nov. 13–15. The newest additions include comedian, actor and writer John Mulaney; Dallas mayor Eric Johnson; U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota; New York Media Editor-at-Large Kara Swisher; and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Judge orders Trump administration to explain why order to restore Voice of America wasn't followed
A federal judge on Wednesday essentially accused the Trump administration of ignoring his orders to restore Voice of America's operations and explain clearly what it is doing with the government-run operation that provides news to other countries. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia gave the administration until Aug. 13 to explain how it will get VOA working again. The outlet that dates back to World War II has been largely dark since March. Lamberth said the administration needs to show what it is doing with the $260 million Congress appropriated for VOA's operations this year. Kari Lake, the adviser appointed by Trump to run the government news agencies, said in June that 85% of employees at VOA and its overseers at the U.S. Agency for Global Media had lost their jobs. She called it a 'long overdue effort to dismantle a bloated, unaccountable bureaucracy.' Lamberth said there's a process for eliminating funding that had previously been appropriated — Congress must vote on it, as it recently did for NPR and PBS funding. But that hasn't happened here, he said. He scolded the administration for providing 'cagey answers' and omitting key information when asked for it in previous court orders. 'Without more explanation, the court is left to conclude that the defendants are simply trying to run out the clock on the fiscal year, without putting the money Congress appropriated toward the purposes Congress intended,' Lamberth wrote. 'The legal term for that is 'waste.'' There was no immediate comment from the White House. ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and David Bauder, The Associated Press
