Representative Ben Cline

by Jim McCarthy

Representative Ben Cline secured more than 80% of the votes cast in the primary in the Virginia’s 6th Congressional District. Fewer than 5% of registered voters participated, and the margin was less than 10% of the votes that elected him in 2020. Since then, the January 6 Committee has commenced its hearings. One might ask what the implication are for Cline, who voted to reject the electoral slates and popular votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania certified to the Congress.

Consider his response to an interview question from The Winchester Star shortly before the primary election.

Reporter: Do you think former President Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 election, and what should be done about what happened on Jan. 6?

Cline: The Constitution provides that each state shall appoint its electors for president, “in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” In the months preceding the 2020 election, those rules and procedures established by the state Legislatures were deliberately changed by a number of individuals, including governors, secretaries of state, elections officials, judges, and private parties. These changes were a direct violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. For this reason, I objected to the electors from those states and I stand by my objection.

Aside from his non-response to the two-part question, the candidate, an attorney, stated that established state procedures “were deliberately changed” apparently unlawfully and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. While he voted against only the certifications from two states, Cline listed a spate of actors who he stated deliberately changed legislative procedures. Moreover, he asserted that these unlawful changes occurred in “the months preceding the 2020 election,” meaning that his objection stands more than 17 months since January 6, 2021 and prior.

What did Cline know and when did he know it? The response to the reporter is, in part, a word for word re-iteration of his press release of January 5, 2021, adding additional reasons to object to some electoral slates:

That usurpation of the Legislatures’ constitutional authority was a primary reason why the 2020 election became riddled with an unprecedented number of allegations of irregularities and improprieties. As a result, prior to the vote last month of the Electoral College, I joined 125 other Members of Congress in urging the Supreme Court to resolve the question surrounding the constitutionality of these slates of electors. Unfortunately, that case was rejected on the basis of insufficient standing. It was not resolved on the merits.

Cline’s reference to joining other members of Congress referred to signing a letter in support of a Texas challenge to elector slates from Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Arizona was not represented in the lawsuit which was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, citing a lack of standing, not “insufficient standing.” A determination of lack of standing means an absence, not an insufficiency. Attorney Cline may have misspoken.

The Texas tactic sought to delay the January 6, 2021 state certified election results by Congress to permit time to investigate the allegations of fraud. This strategy was dubbed the “Green Bay Sweep” by WH advisor Peter Navarro

Cline’s press release concludes a “usurpation” of state legislative authority because the 2020 election had “become riddled with an unprecedented number of allegations of irregularities and improprieties (emphasis added).” The Congressman knew at the time and subsequently at the time of his Star interview that those allegations were the product of deliberate, illegal mischief. It remains a question whether Mr. Cline, at present, has an opinion whether the irregularities and improprieties have been resolved on the merits.

One clue he might consider was the rejection by a majority of members of Congress in both chambers to the efforts against Arizona and Pennsylvania. Or the decisions of over 60 federal and state courts affirming the certifications of state legislatures of their 2020 election results. Absorbed in his re-election campaign, there would be no expectation that he would view the Committee’s proceedings. Whatever Cline knew and when he knew it likely made no difference in his primary. As one voter commented to the Star on primary day, he cast his ballot for the incumbent even though he disagreed with his vote on January 6th.

Cline avoided saying in his interview whether he believed Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. Nor has he indicated what legislative remedies might be made to mitigate the allegedly nefarious tactics employed in the 2020 election. It is not unreasonable to expect that he has some ideas in response to the “unprecedented number of allegations.” What are they?

Strikingly absent from both of Cline’s responses is a lack of comment about the January 6th protestors and/or condemnation of the associated violence. The disinclination, i.e., refusal of politicians to address directly questions posed, is frustrating but essential to crafting the type of scrubbed statements noted here.  By analogy, it’s the equivalent of a politician’s Fifth Amendment response to avoid incrimination or recrimination. The latest hearing of the January 6th Committee revealed information that one member of Congress, Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Alabama, requested via email to the WH an eleventh-hour pardon from the President-unelect for “every congressman or senator who voted to reject the electoral college vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania.”

As the President-unelect cajoled the Department of Justice leadership: “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” Say what?

The patience and tolerance of the American public, especially its voters, with politicians is bewildering. As one politician famously bragged, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.”

“Disin-Cline-Nation” rules.

Jim McCarthy, a former New York attorney, lives in Northern Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

52 responses to “Disin-Cline-Nation”

  1. A lot of voters believe the election was rigged, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      The article concerns the statements of politicians not the “claims” of advocates.

    2. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
      Virginia Gentleman

      This is shocking but ok.

  2. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    I am a bit confused. Is Mr McCarthy trying to say that there were not many substantive changes made in election procedures during the months prior to the 2020 elections, changes that affected the way votes were cast and counted? And that many of those changes were made by actors other than state legislatures. Are we to ignore the Constitutional requirement that election laws be made by state legislatures going forward? If so, could we at least agree on who is to make those decisions. Or will we just fly by the seat of our pants as happened in 2020 and let the courts sort it out, or not.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      None of what you think may have been said is in the article. No court has found a violation of state election laws in 2020. The decisions in AZ and Pa had been made and certified by the states as being in accord with the law.

      1. LesGabriel Avatar
        LesGabriel

        Has any court ruled on the substance of a challenge to state election procedures (I hesitate to call them “laws” as laws by definition are made by legislatures) based on who made the changes? Throwing out cases based on standing is different than ruling on the substance of the issue, in this case whether procedural changes made by actors other than the legislature are valid.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore
          1. LesGabriel Avatar
            LesGabriel

            Thanks. Both cases were very interesting reading and I commend them to anyone who has the opinion that the law was entirely on the side of those who believe that election law belongs in hands other than state legislatures. The Wisconsin case was not based on whether election officials in that state were
            following the law, but rather on the timeliness of the challenge. The 3 dissenting opinions in particular make it clear that the decision leaves serious issues to be faced in the future. It also leaves open the question of when is the “sweet spot” to bring a challenge, since bringing it too early I.E. before the election or before votes are counted can get thrown out for lack of an injured party or standing, and too late because of timeliness. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court , even from a layman’s perspective, can be seen to be bending over backward to come to the conclusions that state statutes don’t really mean what the words say. The 2020 timebombs are still lying there in most cases to plague future elections with little apparent effort to clear them up.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          In fact, the courts ruled on the merits often and continuously. You’ve got lawyers on that side who are now being sanctioned for lying to the courts over facts.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3aa8d5211efddace7b3182e1e19065d79134c17c609d47f3827ce2667b9e3bc1.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b35dc5a191e43c5d04fbb247d82b9ee4229fa2825b5944a95ac88e75d5da2c7.jpg

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Take a ride up Blue Mountain in Warren County and you will understand why Ben Cline has nothing to worry about in November.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      No aspersion was cast upon Cline’s voters, only his avoidance of directly addressing questions.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Thomas Jefferson was the master of this. A tough question lay unanswered as if you didn’t even exist. Politicians, at least the cunning ones, only talk about what they want to and what is good for them. That is why a ride up Blue Mountain explains things.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          If the American public continues to accept unresponsive replies to direct questions, the result is on them. Politicians and voters are entitled to be wrong although elected officials certainly have, like Caesar’s missus, a higher duty. Others among the hoi polloi feel a similar duty.

          I never read an interview of TJ. Cline is no TJ.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            The blue and red line starts at the peak of the Bull Run Mountains. You stay or your side and I will stay on mine.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Sure. Hunker down and let the politicians speak for you. No one is in your space except possibly truth.

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            The Lord loves you Brother McCarthy. Hell, I would mow your grass for free. But only on Sundays.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            TY, but I prefer forthrightness from those in office. Don’t have a clue what the Lord thinks about them.

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            “Hunker down and let the politicians speak for you.” And, yet, here he is, debating with you James. Mirable visu.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            As usual, y’all miss the key points. Some are debating the 2020 election results while the article is questioning the deflections of elected officials. I am not and have not questioned the choices of voters, only the disinclination of politicians to answer questions. Kinda like the straw man comments you are so skilled at.

          7. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            And I answered by certifying the disinclination of politicians on both sides of the debate to answer direct questions directly. Take yes for an answer.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Is it up for debate that Cline voted to reject election results from AZ and PA? What elected official in the opposition showed a disinclination to answer questions. Sorry, your deflection shield is defective.

          9. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Your arguments are like the tin man. No heart.

          10. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            At least my comments remain focused on the topic. It’s heartless to shade information to CYA with constituents. It’s not relevant that all do it when the question is specific. Do you know what Cline’s answers to the reporter’s questions are?

          11. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            I can’t speak for Mr. Cline. But I can give you a flavor of what many in Warren County would say to you.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32c1b5f320943c41272f0067ee6dfbedc790715f5740df1dc17c2111b1823ca5.jpg

          12. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            At least my comments remain focused on the topic. It’s heartless to shade information to CYA with constituents. It’s not relevant that all do it when the question is specific. Do you know what Cline’s answers to the reporter’s questions are?

  4. Hey Jim, Too bad the Rule of Law and our Constitution is in the way of your “Fair” Elections, but sometime, you might consider, that 70 to 80 MILLION Voters feel differently. Yes, They do Believe in our Constitution and the Rule of Law. So, in the future when the TRUTH actually gets out, and Believed, by a HORRIFIED Populace (Democrats who believed the lies), Then you will see all the ANGER, RIOTS, and Murders that was Directed at the Republicans, be redirected at Democrat leadership and the Party. They EAT Them (yes, because they will be starving by that time). Good Luck Spreading the Manure.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Yes, indeed when the truth emerges. The subterfuge of falsehoods about rigged elections in 2020 awaits conclusive proof over bare allegations. Till then.

      Also, a question exists about the beliefs of the 70 to 80 million
      Voters who cast ballots for the losing candidate. They “felt” differently about the allegations of fraud?

  5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    The people elect politicians. Politicians cast their votes on controversial issues. Then they face the electorate again.

    God bless our republican form of government. Indeed you replied to another comment by writing “no aspersions on Cline’s voters”.

    Exactly. Things are as they should be. Perhaps they are not single issue voters.

    Then you later pose and answer a conditional question “If the American public continues to accept unresponsive replies to direct questions, the result is on them”.

    If the public fired every politician who was unresponsive to tough questions, we would not have a quorum in any public body in America. Nor would we have a President.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Things are not as they should be when elected officials are disinclined to respond to questions. Worse, as the public record now shows, some are claiming Fifth Amendment protection for their actions. If that is the caliber of this republic you seek, keep it. Nor is the issue every unresponsive retort but on a specific matter. That is the concern: acceptance by the voter of questionable conduct by elected officials to which answers are not forthcoming.

      If Deflecting from the main topic and/or offering immoral equivalencies for the behavior of elected officials satisfies you, be happy. Any aspersions are not those of voters but of enablers and the electeds themselves.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        “Any aspersions are not those of voters but of enablers and the electeds themselves.”

        And I agreed with you. I also deplore politicians who deflect rather than answer questions straight on.

        Not every reply is a criticism. Take yes for an answer.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          The issues surrounding the votes of Congressfolk on Jan 6 and related matters are hardly mere policy or political party disputes. The questions posed by the reporter remain unanswered. Why was Cline disinclined to respond? He’s not accused of breaking the law. He hasn’t testified under oath.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            The fourth or fifth time you have repeated that. I still agree with you.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      What you are saying is that his constituency does not care that Ben voted to overturn the legitimate will of the voters and that he perpetuates his anti-democracy campaign to this day. They agree with him that political power and an outcome that is favorable to their candidate trumps everything – even our very form of government. That is exactly what is happening here. They just don’t care.

  6. Was Cline invited to respond?

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Cardinal News of July 1 presented a lengthy article on the topic reporting that three of the four Congressfolk did not respond to requests for comment including Cline.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “The patience and tolerance of the American public, especially its voters, with politicians is bewildering.”

    People have been living with rats and cockroaches for millennia.

  8. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    He gave you the answer to #1. Standing doesn’t mean you don’t have a case. I notice you didn’t indicate the political leaning or background of said judges in the case. Certainly the 9th Circuit has had more overturns than it should. Next, why are you so intent on Jan 6th/election/Trump? You need to focus on the total destruction of this country in less than 2 years by forces bent to a totalitarian evil rule. Only with the purpose of absolute disaster are decisions being made that hurt Americans, yet you’re on a subject where people are not watching that Star Chamber trial, and ridiculing the hearsay evidence that should result in jail time for perjury by the “surprise” witness.

    Why is it you have zero problems with Biden hiding from the press so badly during his campaign? The WH press corps indicated that the “ahistoric” lack of access to the POTUS, includes being required to fill out request forms for access to areas others, including Trump, *freely* allowed.

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/KARINEFINALEDITEDA.docx-2.pdf

    They are demanding Karine Jean-Pierre stop limiting reporters access and this is NOT their first request. There is no transparency into the process of how the various reporters are being chosen to cover those events.

    “The continued inability of the White House to be candid and transparent about the selection process for reporters attending his remarks undermines President Biden’s credibility when he says he is a defender of the First Amendment … The incongruity of these restrictions underscores the belief by many reporters that the administration seeks to limit access to the president by anyone outside of the pool, or anyone who might ask a question the administration doesn’t want asked”.

    They indicated POTUS Trump who was criticized constantly for being hostile to reporters, gave freer access to press.

    “Let us be candid. Our job is not to be liked, nor is it to be concerned about whether or not you like what we ask. Reporters’ ability to question the most powerful man in our government shouldn’t be discretionary. The administration’s continued efforts to limit access to the president cannot be defended. Any notion that space is ‘limited’ is not supported by the fact that every other president before Biden (including Trump) allowed full access to the very same spaces without making us fill out a request form prior to admittance.”

    CNN, CBS, Fox News, and even the WH Press Correspondents Assoc. President signed off on this.

    The lower depths of Hell have higher credibility than you do.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I assume that you mean Cassidy Hutchinson when you refer to a surprise witness. She testified under oath. If she committed perjury, as you claim, let all those who denied what she said come forward and testify under oath. Like any other crime, perjury must be proved.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Dick, you wrote “let all those who denied what she said come forward and testify under oath”.

        The Jan 6 committee took her testimony in a surprise hearing on June 28 and then adjourned for weeks. For the last minute nature of the meeting, see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-adds-last-minute-hearing-tuesday-afternoon-rcna35509?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

        There is currently no reconvening of that committee on the House schedule, but it cannot happen until at least July 12.

        Last minute hearing teed up by a deposition. Bombshell hearsay evidence in that deposition. No members of the panel appointed by the GOP House leadership to provide cross examination. Two weeks minimum for the testimony to be pondered by the public without refutation or cross examination.

        Sounds fair to me, Dick, how about you?

        They should have checked the credibility of her written deposition with the Secret Service before allowing it to be broadcast. Her appearance should have been accompanied by the testimony of President Trump’s Secret Service agents and other persons mentioned in her deposition.

        You are too good of a citizen to deny that.

        This panel is a star chamber.

        Like English star chambers, it is used to bypass the courts with testimony not permissible there. Also like the star chambers, it is packed with zealots of one party and a couple of sympathetic members of the other party known to be hostile to the real subject of the show trial, Donald Trump.

        If Mr. Trump is thought guilty of crimes, and he may be, he should be indicted and tried in a court of law, not on a professionally produced TV show.

        Congratulations. A star chamber is quite an achievement in 2022. The Founders would be disappointed, don’t you think? Happy Independence Day.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          The Speaker agreed to several Republican members designated by Kevin McCarthy. She did not agree to a couple because there was the potential that they would be called on to testify. McCarthy decided to boycott the proceedings. Even his handler, Donald Trump, thought that was a bad decision. Furthermore, Republicans had an opportunity to have an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 invasion, but turned that down, as well.

          Therefore, you and other Republicans can’t complain about no Republican
          members available to cross-examine. They had their chances and turned them
          down. https://www.businessinsider.com/kevin-mccarthy-defends-pulling-his-gop-picks-from-january-6-committee-trump-2022-6

          Your description of a Star Chamber is at odds with that of some historians. One description of it goes as follows: “The Star Chamber has its origins in the English institution of the same name that tried people too powerful to be brought before the ordinary common-law courts; the fear was corruption….At first, the court was popular for protecting ordinary people from their oppressors. But eventually it abused its powers, using torture to obtain confessions. Jurors were punished for finding verdicts against the Crown.” https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/820/star-chamber

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It says a lot when Cheney is dumped and folks like Jordan, Gosar, Gomer, Taylor and Gaetz are the GOP standard-bearers.

            The GOP is no more. It’s become the party of cowards and conspiracy theorists.

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            “The GOP is no more.” I’ll remind you of that after the November elections.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think you bailed on Trump after his Ukraine comment, right?

            Others in the GOP did not and still love him.

            So, you’re still going to vote that way, eh?

            Yep. You’ll vote for Trump and the election conspiracies, right?
            yep.

          4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Just back from the beach. Nice try. Equating Mr. Trump to Republicans and Conservatives is a favorite parlor game of the left. I don’t play.

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Dick, I don’t know where you got the idea that Pelosi rejected Jim Jordan and Jim Banks for the panel “because there was the potential that they might be called upon to testify”. In the contemporaneous account by NPR, an arm of the Democratic National Committee: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1018850848/pelosi-rejects-2-gop-nominees-for-the-jan-6-panel-citing-integrity-of-the-probe

            “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has vetoed two Republican nominees to the panel set to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.”

            “Citing “statements and actions” made by the pair — Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio — Pelosi said she was rejecting their nominations “with respect for the integrity of the investigation.”

            “The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” Pelosi said.”

            So Nancy, the Red Queen, was concerned with the “integrity of the investigation”. Pretty much as she was concerned with the integrity of two impeachments of Donald Trump.

            From another NPR story six days later:

            “The panel comprises seven Democrats and two Republicans all appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She previously rejected several GOP members originally selected for the panel by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio — citing “statements and actions” made by the pair that she felt would “impact the integrity of the committee.” Both Banks and Jordan had publicly expressed concerns over the panel itself.”

            “McCarthy called Pelosi’s move “an egregious abuse of power” and pulled all of his picks from the panel. The two Republicans who Pelosi appointed — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — have paid a high political price for their participation. And Cheney had already lost her top post within her party before the appointment.”

            She was actually afraid that Rep. Jordan in particular, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, who had proven such a capable opponent in the impeachment hearings, was too capable a guy to let the commission proceed as corruptly as it has proven to proceed without the slightest objection from Cheney or Kinzinger, Pelosi’s favorite house pets.

            And you know it.

            I had hopes that Cheney would at least insist on a fair hearing. I am disappointed she has not. The orchestration of the Cassidy Hutchinson hearsay testimony without cross-examination or first hand witnesses to the tales she told was a complete disgrace. Adjourning for two weeks immediately thereafter was worse.

            Pelosi has set the precedent for Republican hearings in the next Congress, much like Harry Reid set the stage for suspension of the filibuster in judicial nominations that resulted in Donald Trump’s three appointees. How did that work out for the left?

            BTW, your defense of Star Chambers is chilling.

          6. vicnicholls Avatar
            vicnicholls

            Good Lord Dick from what I understand McCarthy is doing everything to keep out right wingers because he can’t control them. Weee this is not the first time I’ve had to remind one of your leanings to read your Manifesto. “Handler Donald Trump”. LOL I thought being told by an African American female that they could get an ID, no problem, and not an impediment to voting, was a Manifesto misread.

      2. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        So Dick, I see you are not answering all my questions/comments. What were you saying about Rep. Cline?

  9. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Over the course of several years, I was able to observe Ben Cline in the General Assembly–in subcommittee, committee, and on the floor of the House. He never struck me as having any leadership qualities. He always seemed to follow the lead of other Republicans and never added anything original to the discussion. I always considered him a lightweight, in every facet of the process.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      A lightweight? Probably. A man who understands his constituency. O yeah…
      It works both ways. See Lucas from Portsmouth.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        You’d be right. But in my mind, one thing to be a true believer and another to believe in conspiracies.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Q Anon and Blue Anon. I can’t tell the difference anymore.

      2. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        Try going on Twitter. Lucas might think that bad publicity is better than no publicity, but when you have bots kissing rings and real folks kicking her can, comparing her extremely unfavorably to Sen. Spruill (who holds a good reputation among D’s and a # of R’s) and then Merle Rutledge, probably not the smartest thing.

Leave a Reply