After much demand, U.S. Rep. William Timmons to host telephone town hall
SOUTH CAROLINA, S.C. (WSPA) — U.S. Representative William Timmons (R-SC 4th District) is set to host a telephone town hall on Tuesday night.
The event comes less than one week after the congressman referred to town halls as a product of the South Carolina Democratic Party.'These so-called 'town halls' orchestrated by the SCDP are nothing more than staged political pep rallies for their left-wing agenda,' Timmons said. 'I am focused on delivering President Trump's America First agenda, not performative gatherings.'
Rep. Timmons announced his plans to host a telephone town hall on Monday night, following President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office.
'Looking forward to speaking with you and answering your questions,' Timmons said on social media.
According to Merriam-Webster, a town hall is defined as an event where a 'public official or political candidate addresses an audience by answering questions posed by individual members.'
U.S. Rep. Sheri Biggs hosts virtual town hall
A recent billboard in Greenville claimed the last in-person town hall held by Timmons was more than three years ago.
Greenville City Council At-Large Representative Russell Stall said that while he is not affiliated with the group behind the display; he is concerned.
'Our biggest responsibility and our biggest privilege is listening to the voice of the people,' Stall said. 'I am very concerned that we are not seeing that here.'
The advertisement directed readers to a website that criticizes Timmons' decisions and alleged lack of involvement with his constituents.
On April 22, U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC 6th District) held an in-person town hall at Wofford College.
People travelled from across the region to hear answers they feel they have not gotten from Congressman Timmons, who represents the district. Clyburn even criticized Timmons for not holding an in-person town hall.
The town hall is slated to start at 5:45 p.m. Constituents interested in speaking with Rep. Timmons can sign up online.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Some Spartanburg Co. deputies were sworn in incorrectly, interim sheriff realizes
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. (WSPA) – When Jeffery Stephens was sworn in last week as Spartanburg County Sheriff, he noticed something was missing from the oath which he was required to recite. Some deputies had been sworn in incorrectly by leaving out part of the oath they're required to recite. Every deputy in South Carolina has to take two oaths. One is found within the South Carolina Constitution. The other is found in the South Carolina Code of Laws. Reciting the two oaths is part of their duty to obey and enforce laws fairly. A spokesperson said the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office noticed, under former Sheriff Chuck Wright, some deputies were incorrectly sworn in because some words were missing in the code of laws. Spartanburg Co. Sheriff Chuck Wright resigns, cites 'recent health diagnosis' Brandi Hinton, an attorney at Ellis Hinton Law said not stating the full oath and proceeding could lead to problems with the arrests made by those deputies. 'Certainly is the right of a defendant to have a deputy arrest them that is properly sworn because that is what the constitution and the state statues say,' Hinton said. Hinton said it'll be at the discretion of the defendants impacted and their attorneys on how they handle this. How many cases may be impacted is unknown at this time. Hinton said she thinks it will be used as a negotiation tactic. However, she believes a case dismissal would be extremely difficult. 'It is really a case specific decision,' Hinton said. 'It is a strategy decision by the particular defense attorney and defendant that they will make jointly.' Hinton said this issue has happened before in South Carolina. She says it's uncommon but it's also happened at our nation's highest level. Community, law enforcement react to Sheriff Chuck Wright's resignation 'When President Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts, that oath was actually administered incorrectly and Chief Justice John Roberts went to the White House and corrected it later that same day,' Hinton said. In a Greenwood County case heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court where deputies were improperly sworn in, justices ruled the case would not be dismissed. 'The Court of Appeals opinion is broader in that it also evaluated the status of the deputies,' a spokesperson for the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office explained. 'It provides that the deputies are at least 'de facto deputies' and that actions taken consistent with their position as a deputy are lawful.' 'Simply because you have this issue, it doesn't mean that you necessarily can't be prosecuted for what they arrested you for,' Hinton said. Hinton, a former federal and state prosecutor who has worked thousands of cases as both a prosecutor and defense attorney, said it is something the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office might see brought up in court. 'At any point, the Supreme Court can take up another issue or they can say this issue is different from the one we heard back in 2016,' Hinton said. 'They are very similar, so the court will look to that opinion in making their decision but certainly they can raise that issue at any time.' The sheriff's office said Sheriff Stephens corrected the issue this week and has since sworn in the deputies – again – with the full service oath. Cases that could be impacted are only cases handled by deputies between the time they were sworn in under former Sheriff Chuck Wright and re-sworn in on Tuesday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
What do SC leaders think about Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'?
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – There was plenty of drama behind-the-scenes in Washington D.C. surrounding President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' including a 'no' vote from one of South Carolina's Republican Representatives. President Trump said his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' includes G.O.P. priorities, such as tax cuts and extra border security. 'We're not doing any cutting of anything meaningful. The only thing we're cutting is waste, fraud, and abuse with Medicaid,' said Trump. As expected, democratic Representative Jim Clyburn voted against the bill. Representative Ralph Norman, along with a few other G.O.P. holdouts, initially voted against the bill, saying it didn't go far enough to cut Medicaid benefits for undocumented immigrants. 'You know, to be honest with you, I never thought I would have to fight for getting illegals off the government payroll,' Norman said. After conversations with Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump, Norman said they worked out a deal. 'It was a great bill, but we just didn't cut like I thought we should have, and I held out for the last minute,' Norman said. 'When we got pretty much what I thought we needed, we voted for it. ' Senator Lindsey Graham said people should be responsible with their own vote, but Republicans shouldn't vote 'no.' 'We need to get behind President Trump,' Graham said. 'This is our best chance in 40 years to control spending in Washington, and we need to be working with Trump, not against him.' Graham added that he expects the bill to change in the Senate. 'I intend to change the bill, but I'll do it working with President Trump,' Graham said. 'He has enough enemies in the in the nation and throughout the world. The Republican Party needs to help this man because he's doing things that other presidents couldn't do. ' Governor Henry McMaster also supports the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' The Bill was passed in the House, and is now in the hands of the Senate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
What to Know as Supreme Court Lets Trump End Migrant Program
Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States deplane at the Simon Bolivar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, Friday, May 2, 2025. Credit - Ariana Cubillos—AP Photo Hundreds of thousands of migrants could be at risk of deportation after a divided Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump Administration can—for now—end a Biden-era program that extended humanitarian parole protections to migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The CHNV special-parole program allowed migrants from the four countries to travel legally to the U.S. and stay and work in the country for up to two years. It was used by at least 530,000 migrants since late 2022. The Supreme Court's ruling, the latest of several decisions the court has issued green-lighting the Trump Administration's aggressive approach to immigration, gives Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem the discretion to revoke the parole program while legal challenges to its termination move through the courts. '[The Biden Administration] allowed more than half a million poorly vetted aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and their immediate family members to enter the United States through these disastrous parole programs; granted them opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers,' Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said after the ruling came down. 'Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First.' Several immigration advocacy groups said the decision will have 'devastating consequences' on immigrant communities. 'This is a deeply tragic decision that penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws,' Todd Schulte, president of an immigration and criminal justice reform advocacy organization, wrote in a statement emailed to TIME. 'This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences…The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from half a million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.' Here's what to know about the program and the Supreme Court's decision. The program, rolled out during the Biden Administration, allowed migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to obtain authorization to come to the United States legally, as well as to stay and work legally in the country and seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits, if they were eligible, during a two-year parole period. It was initially adopted in 2022 as a response to high levels of illegal immigration, specifically for Venezuelan immigrants, says David Beir, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. The program was predated by a similar program created in early 2022 for Ukrainian immigrants in response to the surge of Ukrainians who came to the border seeking asylum after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The program required migrants from Venezuela to obtain a sponsor in the United States who would be willing to take some measure of financial responsibility for them, as well as an airline ticket to fly directly, and legally, to the United States. The Biden Administration rolled out the program in hopes that it would give the government control to vet incoming migrants and manage the flow of arrivals through air travel, rather than across the southern U.S. border, Beir wrote in 2023. Eligibility for the protections was later extended to people from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti, as well. The Supreme Court's Friday decision overruled a lower court in Massachusetts that temporarily blocked the federal government from implementing Noem's March 25 order to revoke the legal status given to migrants under the program. That order was in line with President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 Executive Order 'Securing Our Borders,' which instructed Noem to 'terminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States established in my Executive Orders.' The Supreme Court ruling will allow the Administration to end the program while the case proceeds. The decision was unsigned and not accompanied by an explanation. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson issued an incensed dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stating that the court 'has plainly botched this assessment today.' The program had been widely lauded by immigrant rights groups as a 'humanitarian relief' program utilized to help those in unstable conditions in their own countries seek refuge. 'Even within an immigration system that is decades overdue for a Congressional overhaul, the CHNV parole processes stood out as an innovative model for creating legal and orderly pathways,' wrote Schulte, of 'Granting parole to people fleeing harm dramatically reduced unauthorized migration to the southern border, and it allowed people to work and contribute, bringing greater stability to families, employers, and communities across the country.' Beir, of the Cato Institute, said that terminating the program could quickly end the legal status of migrants who have been protected under the program. 'The administration's already empowered its agents to arrest people who are on parole, to arrest people who are applicants for asylum,' Beir told TIME. 'The practical upshot is that a lot of these people had parole for two years, and if they haven't applied for asylum, then there's really no basis for them to be in the country, and they start accumulating unlawful presence as soon as this decision takes effect.' According to Beir, it is unclear how many migrants will be affected and potentially deported due to the ruling. 'Certainly half a million came in through the program,' Beir said. 'But then, a lot of these people were from Haiti and Venezuela, have temporary protected status, which you know the administration is eventually going to revoke as well. And then, of course, the backstop of being an asylum applicant for many people will be another way for them to be able to keep working legally and, you know, going through the process and stay here.' Beir says an important aspect of this decision that must be highlighted is that the migrants who used the program went through legal pathways to enter the United States—pathways opened based on promises made by the United States government when the program began: 'They pay for their own flights. They travel on airlines like any other visitors to the United States and the other you know, part of this is really completely unprecedented for an administration to en masse terminate the status of people who've come to the United States legally like this.' Contact us at letters@
