The Heritage Foundation filed an ethics complaint Wednesday against Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., who last month accused a Second Amendment expert with the Washington-based think tank of lying to Congress about the contents of firearms legislation.
In the complaint filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts accuses Porter of “knowingly and intentionally defaming” Amy Swearer, a legal fellow in Heritage’s Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. (The Heritage Foundation’s multimedia news outlet, The Daily Signal, is The Daily Signal.
Swearer testified at a hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on June 8, where Porter accused her, in a previous testimony in 2019, of lying to Congress.
“Amy Swearer is one of the brightest, most influential Second Amendment scholars in this country. She is also a forthright and honest patriot who believes in the Constitution,” Roberts said in a public statement. “Rep. Porter’s behavior toward her was emblematic of what Washington has become—unserious and unscrupulous individuals more interested in viral moments and social media clout than honest policy discussions and problem-solving.”
Porter posted a short video on social media shortly after the tense exchange. It showed a portion of her conversation with Swearer (a regular contributor to The Daily Signal).
Special interests are trying to block gun violence prevention legislation by lying to the American people. The same witness who misled Congress again in 2019 is back today to advocate for sensible measures that would keep Americans secure. I called out her BS. pic.twitter.com/52C7Vx5lL4
— Rep. Katie Porter (@RepKatiePorter) June 8, 2022
In the tweet that accompanied the video, Porter’s boasted: “Special interests are lying to the American people to block gun violence prevention legislation. The same witness that misled Congress in 2019 is back today, urging against sensible measures to keep Americans safe. I called out her BS.”
Elected to a second term in 2020, Porter, a law professor, is the first Democrat to represent California’s 45th Congressional District, which includes part of conservative Orange County.
Heritage’s ethics complaint contends that Porter “grossly abused her privileges under the [Constitution’s] Speech and Debate Clause to publicly slander Ms. Swearer with impunity, affording her no recourse or ability to defend herself and her reputation.”
The complaint also asserts that Porter’s “unethical conduct” is a discredit to the House and “undermines the integrity of its proceedings.”
Heritage’s complaint asks the Office of Congressional Ethics:
–To consider a formal reprimand and admonishment of Porter “for knowingly and intentionally defaming a congressional witness.”
–To “remind all members of Congress that while they may disagree with a witness’s testimony, they have a duty to refrain from, at the very least, falsely accusing them of perjury for political gain.”
–To recommend that Porter’s accusation “be stricken from the record.”
–To recommend that Porter “either apologize for falsely accusing a witness of perjury when she knew it to be false, or publicly clarify that she did not intend to accuse Swearer of a federal crime and should have chosen her words more carefully.”
Porter doesn’t appear likely to apologize or clarify her remarks, however. Jordan Wong, her spokesman, doubled down in writing, referring to the 2019 House hearing.
“Like Mr. Roberts, Congresswoman Porter believes that policy debates are part of healthy democracy. To have those debates, we must have shared facts,” Wong said, adding:
And the facts here are clear: Ms. Swearer’s claim that gun violence prevention legislation would make Americans ‘become felons overnight’ is misleading and unsubstantiated. She should not have testified under oath to Congress.
Heritage’s complaint notes that in January 2020, the House Ethics Committee published a memorandum warning that lawmakers and staffers should not share “deepfakes” or “intentional distortions of audio or visual representations.” The memo also said that sharing such information “could erode public trust [or] affect public discourse.”
Roberts made the observation that Congress works for Americans.
“Members of Congress like Katie Porter need to be reminded whom they serve, and put back in their place when they overstep,” Roberts said. “If Ms. Porter is interested in an authentic conversation about Second Amendment rights and the intricacies of various firearm legislation, we are more than willing to help educate her.”
Porter cited Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) as the sponsor of a bill to ban semiautomatic guns that included a grandfather clause which would allow existing owners to keep such guns.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, questioned Swearer during that hearing about “guns Democrats want to ban,” asking: “Do you think law-abiding people will be less safe to protect themselves, their family, their property, if this law that the Democrats are proposing actually happens, or this bill that the Democrats are proposing actually becomes law?”
Swearer replied to Jordan: “I think worse than that, sir. You will see millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for nothing more than having scary-looking features on firearms.”
Swearer made a comment after the hearing on June 8. National Review published June 13 that Jordan included “a series of general questions about” gun features that Democrats wanted to ban.
The Heritage legal fellow said the Ohio Republican did not reference “any particular bill or bills by name” when asking whether law-abiding citizens would be “less safe to protect themselves.”
Do you have a comment about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, along with your name and the address of your town or state.
