Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has filed an ethics complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against Rep. Katie Porter (D., Cal.) after her allegation that a witness lied under oath in opposing gun laws three years ago in a hearing. In a hearing this month, she made the allegation against Heritage Foundation legal fellow and Second Amendment expert Amy Swearer. The exchange between Swearer and Porter went viral on the Internet with many liberals praising Porter for the exchange. A closer examination shows that the attack was unfair and unfounded. It is also an increasingly common part of congressional hearings as members seek to intimidate or abuse expert witnesses who hold opposing views. While these ethical complaints are difficult to maintain under the generous rules of the House, Porter’s conduct warrants condemnation.
The Deputy Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Porter is also on the faculty of University of California (Irvine) Law School, though listed as “on leave.”
The controversy was triggered by a hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on June 8 regarding the “gun violence epidemic” in the United States.
The hearing became heated when Porter questioned Swearer about her testimony during a 2019 hearing exchange with Republican Rep. Jim Jordan on the dangers of “assault weapons.”
What is most striking about the exchange is the refusal of Porter to allow Swearer to respond. Porter asked Swearer about her testimony that legislation could make law-bidding citizens “felons overnight.” Porter was noting that Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) had introduced a bill with a grandfather provision that would allow gun owners to retain firearms they already owned.
Swearer began to respond that “so that is the case under that bill, the problem is…” That is when Porter cut her off as she tried to explain with “reclaiming my time” and telling the Chair “please instruct the witness the time belongs to me.” She then said, “you said yes in response to my question.” Porter continued to refuse to let Swearer fully respond to allegations of possible criminal conduct.
The tactic is an effort to attack witnesses while not allowing them any opportunity to respond. Most citizens do not see these abusive tactics when, as here, allies edit the tapes to make witnesses look evasive or shamed before the committee.
Here are the facts. The exchange concerns a response to Rep. Jordan in a 2019 hearing when he asked about “guns Democrats want to ban,” and asked Swearer “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 responded “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.”
So the gist of Porter’s allegation that Swearer lied under oath is that, at the time of the hearing because the Cicilline bill had a grandfather provision that would allow gun owners to retain firearms they already owned.
Porter then twice said that Swearer “falsely testified under oath” while continuing to prevent her from fully answering that slanderous allegation.
What Swearer was trying to say is difficult to discern from the exchange due to Porter’s obstruction. However, in a later opinion piece, Swearer explained that there were actually multiple bills pending, including one by Rep. Swalwell without such exemptions. However, she believed that even Cicilline’s bill presented such a threat:
“And, as I was trying to explain to Porter before she cut me off, Cicilline’s bill— grandfather provision and all—nonetheless posed serious dangers to peaceable citizens and made it very likely that, as with Swalwell’s bill, many would quickly be turned into felons.
That bill’s two primary problems stemmed from vague wording that seemed poised to make anyone a felon for letting another person so much as handle their pistol-gripped firearm or standard capacity magazine.
The bill made it a felony to transfer the grandfathered firearm to ANY person without first going through a federal firearms licensee and having a background check conducted. The sole exceptions were for the (1) “temporary custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee,” and (2) “temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or establish range if the [firearm] is, at all times, kept with the premises of the target facility or range.” Meanwhile, the “grandfathering” of magazines applied only to “possession,” and the law provided no means of legally transferring those magazines to the possession of another.
In other words, the moment any person other than the gun-owner takes physical possession of a grandfathered gun outside of the confines of a gun range without a background check, or takes physical possession of a gun with a standard capacity magazine under any context, multiple felonies have been committed. The moment that law would have gone into effect, countless Americans would have become felons in the literal blink of an eye, countless numbers of times every day. And they’d be felons based on nothing more than the temporary changed possession of a standard capacity magazine or gun with “scary looking features.”
One can reasonably disagree with such analysis, but it is a legitimate opinion and clearly not perjury. Even if you fault the failure to note the grandfather clause in the Cicilline bill, it is perfectly plausible that, as claimed, Swearer was speaking more generally or referencing these other elements. Indeed, Porter could have faulted the earlier omission without alleging that Swearer lied under oath.
What makes Porter’s conduct contemptible is not just that she is making an unfounded allegation of lying under oath, but that she used her position to prevent Swearer from defending her integrity. It was just another canned hunt hearing.
Porter knows that members enjoy protections from defamation lawsuits in speaking in Congress. That exposes witnesses to abuse without legal recourse. It has become common, particularly in the House, for members to use their positions and legal protections to savage witnesses with opposing views.
Later, Porter’s office insisted that the comment that Swearer “falsely testified under oath” is not “a perjury claim, which requires intent and which Rep. Porter did not allege.” However, Porter emphasized (after refusing to let Swearer fully answer) that she admitted that she read the Cicilline — clearly trying to establish a knowing lie.
The House ethics process has long been a subject of ridicule. Critics maintain that it is designed primarily to protect members from ethical charges. It is doubtful that the committee will take any meaningful action.
However, Porter’s conduct creates a chilling effect on any witnesses coming before the Committee when they believe that they will not only be attacked but denied an opportunity to respond to the accusing member. Few academics are willing to be subjected to such abuse under these conditions.
I have testified over 50 times in the House and Senate for both Democrats and Republicans over the last three decades. I often view such testimony as not just an honor but an obligation to respond when called for an opinion on legislative issues. Yet, I have seen an alarming change in these hearings.
Years ago, it would have been viewed as inappropriate to launch such an attack, particularly while reclaiming time to prevent a response. I would have expected the Chair to defend the witness even though she was called by the other party. Politics was just as rough but there was some semblance of rules of basic fairness and decency.
In the age of rage, the loudest and the most aggressive politicians are rewarded. Today, members seem more concerned about avoiding a rage deficit. They know that such tapes will be edited by sympathetic media and pundits and that the most vicious attacks will receive the greatest accolades.
What occurred in the hearing was wrong. Rep. Porter was wrong. She was wrong not in being pro-gun controls but in using a personal attack to try to silence a witness with an opposing view.
She was wrong because she made this serious allegation of potential criminal conduct while refusing to allow the witness to defend herself.
She was wrong by defaming a witness while knowing that Swearer had few options in seeking legal recourse against her.
If the Congress hopes to maintain a free and diverse range of expert testimony, it must reverse this abusive trend in personal attacks on witnesses by either party.
When elected Ds such as Porter (and their non-elected sycophants) don’t have facts to support their positions, they fabricate or outright lie or take out of context or …
“I don’t know if you’re saying it out of ignorance or lying — “
ATS makes such statements knowing that he twists the facts and leaves out pertinent details.
Anonymous the Stupid has no credibility.
Anomaly, what was twisted (well, you’re twisted, but that’s a separate discussion).
Despite what many of the commenters on here today have said, one serious take-away from Professor Turley’s piece is that fewer people who are asked to testify before Congressional committees or sub-committees will be willing to do so.
What has changed that you believe this now but not before?
Also, Congress can subpoena people to testify.
during a House hearing on abortion this week (July 14th) the Republican witness was subjected to this behavior by the Democratic members of the committee. Thankfully one of the Republican members gave almost 3 minutes of his time to the witness so that she could respond to the questions that the Democrats wouldn’t allow her to answer.
Republlicans will use the “I reclaim my time” tactice but only when the witness refuses to answer the question asked or attempt to filibuster the member’s time.
It’s called bullying, and the Democrats use it as their go-to tactic because most of their claims, like Porter’s, are false. Democrats are basically cowards with no respect for the law. It’s laughable that so many of them are lawyers, when the law for them is just something to abuse and manipulate. After all, their motto, self-admittedly, is “By any means necessary.” That doesn’t sound like they care much for the legal process.
What a surprise. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle make false statements. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle cut off statements from witnesses. But Turley only singles out a Democrat.
Here’s a list of investigations by the Office of Congressional Ethics: https://oce.house.gov/reports/investigations
Personally, I’d like 18 U.S. Code § 1001 to apply to members of Congress, just like it applies to people testifying before Congress. But I doubt that Congress will police itself that way.
Hey, “Einstein”. It’s recent news, that’s why he’s addressing it. If you knew anything about Turley you’d know he’s called out both parties for the tactic in the past. But you’re one of “them”, so no one is surprised at YOUR tactic of diversion.
Hey, “Einstein,” you are apparently unable to substantiate your claim by linking to a column where Turley called out a Republican member doing this.
+1
Hey Einstein, we all mean the one particular “Anonymous” who comments 1000 times a day, is always anti-Turley (yet he is always on Turley’s site) and who is always a goon. Of course the one particular “Anonymous” would support Porter being a goon, because he is a goon.
Now Einstein, the reason Turley is writing about it is because an ETHICS COMPLAINT was just filed…get it.
Hey Einstein, ethics complaints are filed against people of both parties, and Turley generally ignores them.
“Of course the one particular “Anonymous” would support Porter being a goon, because he is a goon.”
I thought he was Anonymous the Stupid, but goon fits as well.
“She was wrong because she made this serious allegation of potential criminal conduct while refusing to allow the witness to defend herself.
She was wrong by defaming a witness while knowing that Swearer had few options in seeking legal recourse against her.”
***************************
Just another Cali Dim being a Dim. Or as Al Wilson might say:
Probably the best response to questions like Ms. Porters would be. “I do not understand the question and can you please break it down in to understandable parts so i can give an accurate answer to each part”. Other possibilities would be to be to repeatedly ask for clarification of the question until the time runs out. Make a plea to the chair to be allowed to answer the question and if it’s not forthcoming then answer nothing, repeatedly stating you do not understand the question or the incident referenced or that you have to research your records because they are not currently available to you. The time limit constrains the House member also. Or just sit there and plead ignorance and act befuddled. Brush up on how to answer questions without answering questions. Politicians do it all the time. Yes or No answers are fairly rare anymore. A better answer could be “it Depends”. Just because the questioner in congress wants a yes or no answer does not mean you have to give it to them.
GEB:
“Probably the best response to questions like Ms. Porters would be. “I do not understand the question and can you please break it down in to understandable parts so i can give an accurate answer to each part”
********************************
Or in a perfect world: “Hey, its a compound question. Which part of stupid do you want me to demolish first?”
The three Rs: Respect for self, respect for others, and responsibility for one’s actions.
A learned and self disciplined leader can respectfully and successfully argue a point without raising their voice by using facts.
Many in Congress have descended to the level of the Jerry Springer Show. Is it any wonder that citizens have lost confidence in their ability to do anything useful.
E.M.
Jerry Springer Show, hard to disagree with that.
Civil War is inevitable by the midterms.
zzclancy,
Just read about an MSNBC interview with some guy named Malcolm Nance.
Yeah, I could see it.
Gentlemen let’s hope this nation never sees a civil war. As for Nance he’s made numerous foolish statements he’s had to back track. I believe he labeled Glenn Greenwald an agent of Moscow, he later said he didn’t mean it.
Let’s see that we all bring back integrity to our voting system, one American vote from one American, ID, in person with limited mail in ballots. If we’re able to accomplish this the American system that some very wise men gifted us will see us through the hard times.
Just yesterday Rep Pressley, the moronic “Squad” member from MA used the same juvenile “I reclaim my time” absurdity to shut off the witness testifying during an abortion hearing.
This is just the latest manifestation of leftist denial of speech that runs counter to their belief system. Want to have a conservative speak on campus…SHUT IT DOWN, SHOUT IT DOWN or WHISTLE IT DOWN. Want to opine on some issue with which the left disagrees…thrown off of Twitter, banned from FB and YouTube and other social media. Want to defend Trump or protesters (rioters) regarding January 6th…no cross examination, no Republican picked members and no press questions that counter the Dems narrative. Want to be free to NOT read a mind-numbing recital of “stolen Native American Lands” on campus…fired, or if you have tenure made so miserable that you quit.
We have the media actually “reporting” that Adam Schiff is saying that he “has evidence that will force the DOJ to indict Trump?!??!!? Imagine Schiff swearing he has evidence of anything! We have Swalwell, a member of the INTELLIGENCE Committee sleeping with a Chinese spy and not being arrested, PUBLICLY interrogated or at least removed from the Committee. Instead Swalwell is brazen enough to still be a punk on Twitter instead of hanging his head in shame. Schiff, Swalwell, Schumer (with his threats aimed at Kavanaugh) and Pelosi should be shunned by the body politic and yet they are the biggest mouths in government.
Since I am on a stream of consciousness rant this morning I will ask one more thing: How is it that Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Green are considered nut jobs and extremists that should not be allowed to serve while at the same time Ilhan Omar can recite anti-Semitic tropes, marry her brother to evade immigration laws, call 9/11 “some people did something”, rage against the country that allowed her to immigrate here and illegally give her new husband millions in campaign funds while not being challenged for the right to serve? How about Tlaib and her actions? Omar, Tlaib and Cori Bush are far more insane than Boebert and MTG and further out of mainstream thinking as well.
That is it for now and I look forward to JeffSilberman yelling that nothing matters except Trump and “Anonymous” claiming that Turley is ignoring some tidbit the moron picked up on WMOONBAT FM radio.
Hullbobby,
NOTHING MATTERS EXCEPT TRUMP
There. I said it. Happy?
You one sick puppy.
I wear my dog collar with pride.
Ms. Porter Must be doing well for even you to go after her. If every witness who testified in opposition to right wing Republican policies who has been abused, slimed, cut off and personally attacked by a Republican member of Congress filed a complaint the Capital would be filled with paper tothe top of the dome. The Heritage Foundation and ethics……what a joke.
Democrats and their toadies are masters of don’t debate but obfuscate. Are they taking lessons from college campuses or are they giving lessons to campuses? Don’t let your enemies explain their position, shut them down. For the CNN, msnbc viewers it’s like ‘Little Stilwell’ (A league if their own) being offered a chocolate bar, gimme, gimme, gimme.
I’m curious why my comment saying the woman is ugly is not published, yet the one saying she has sex with dogs is published?
LOL, yea kinda gotta face only a mother could love on pay day. Check her out as Batgirl.
It’s on the internet, it must be true.
Both sides have to quit these show hearings and go back to attempting to gather information. As stated in the article, neither side is innocent. It is absolutely despicable!
“Congressional Ethics” the very definition of an oxymoron in Webster’s.
Turley is being intentionally disingenuous here. What Turley doesn’t mention is that looooong explanation Swearer provided was more about wasting Porter’s time with long winded answers. Turley conveniently leaves out the fact that there are rules which limit the time congressmen have to ask questions and it’s long been a disingenuous tactic to waste time by giving long winded non-answers to very specific questions. Katie Porter is well known for asking direct pointed questions that require only a yes or no answer.
Swearer did technically lie and porter was correct. Because as Turley shows Swearer’s long winded answer would have been an evasion of the simple fact that she did provide a false claim.
This was not an “attack” against Swearer. It was Porter maintaining her time to ask questions because those deliberate long winded non-answers are designed specifically to waste time and limit the number of questions a congressman can ask.
Turley as usual is being a disingenuous scholar.
Katie Porter is well known for asking direct pointed questions that require only a yes or no answer.
Because congressional hearings, sanctioned to gather information, best operate, when witnesses are limited to yes and no answers.
Svelaz adds more support for our hosts observation. That democrats are not interested in the facts, only advancing a skewed, narrative.
” Here are the facts.”
When Turley tells us what the facts are, there are almost always other facts he left out.
Enigma, quote turley with the address of the quote. Then tell us what Turley left out that was inappropriate (and why).
You make a lot of statements, but never back them up.
Enigma backs up his statements more often than you do.
Enigma is lucky, lucky to have a worthless liar on his side.
Iowan2,
“ Because congressional hearings, sanctioned to gather information, best operate, when witnesses are limited to yes and no answers.”
When the congressman is clearly, fully knowledgeable about the issue at a heading yes or no questions are effective and confirm either the problem or the solution.
Katie Porter is famous for her thorough research. She often shows the supposed “experts” she questions often can’t grasp the basics. Sometimes she exposes ignorance. Those who are before her often underestimate her knowledge and tenacity in getting direct answers. She doesn’t mince words and certainly is well versed on the rules which is why she always gets her time back after these long winded useless answers to her very direct questions.
“…long winded non-answers to very specific questions” are an art form for leftists because they rarely have facts on their side. Doublespeak is in the DNC DNA and a Saul Alinsky specialty, and it’s exactly why I left the Democrat party years ago.
What a bunch of amoral, nasty people.
Swearer didn’t lie. She was prevented from explaining the truth.
If Porter did the same outside of Congress she could have been sued for slander. But Porter succeeded, along with the media’s help, to convince dumb people like Svelaz that Swearer was lying.
Democrats devolve into lies, because they cannot sustain the debate using facts.
In this case, at least another member can allow the witness to respond in full.
Of course, if the committee happens to be all selected by the Speaker, no opportunity for the witness to tell the truth is never offered. Only the lies are part of the official proceedings.
Almost never is a whole committee selected by the Speaker. If you were referring to the Jan. ^ Committee. There was an initial proposal for a 911-type commission with members of the House & Senate but Republicans didn’t want any investigation and refused. Then Pelosi proposed a select committee consisting of eight Democrats and five Republicans with Kevin McCarthy putting up his choices. Pelosi followed House rules and rejected two choices including Jim Jordan whose name has come up multiple times in testimony and was requested to testify about his Jan. 6th call to Trump. McCarthy opted not to replace the two rejected members and declined all Republican representation, pulling his other three choices. There are only two Republicans serving on the committee because Kevin McCarthy pulled three different Republicans from the committee and he could have had five.
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-man-accidentally-made-january-083000706.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
Enigma, Republicans did not refuse, that is a lie. When the Republicans named their reps to be on the Committee, which is what has been done forever, Pelosi would not allow them to be seated and that is why they balked. Imagine if Republicans ran a Committee and didn’t let the Dems pick their members.
Why does the left need to lie? Because their policies, arguments and positions cannot be defended.
Democrats rejected two of the five who would have been replaced by other Republicans. McCarthy pulled the remainder of his selections. Where exactly is the lie? Jordan in particular was known at the time to have spoken with Trump on January 6th due to his own interviews. In what world was he not going to be asked to be a witness? Perhaps you wanted him to question himself. Republicans did refuse, the question is, why are you lying about it?
“Jordan in particular was known at the time to have spoken with Trump on January 6th due to his own interviews. In what world was he not going to be asked to be a witness? Perhaps you wanted him to question himself. “
Jordan wouldn’t be questioning himself. He would be responding to questions about what he knew. There was no problem with either Jordan or Banks on the committee. Dem’s succeeded in destroying the integrity of the committee making the entire hearing suspect.
“ There was no problem with either Jordan or Banks on the committee.”
Yes there was. Both Jordan abs Banks were more intent on obstruction than being honest about investigating. Jordan involved as part of the Jan 6 attempted subversion of the vote.
How was ge involved with the “Rissians Stole the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign?
Both Jordan abs Banks were more intent on obstruction than being honest about investigating.
Asking questions of the witnesses would be a terrible obstruction to setting the narrative.
But other than your Mighty Carnack impersonation, you have no evidence.
Of course, they will obstruct the narrative on cross and people will realize that hearsay is worthless and what they thought was the truth was a narrated video.
You are such a snake.
Pelosi rejected 2 of the 5, and McCarthy pulled the other 3.
As I just quoted in my 9:42am comment, the House rules have ALWAYS allowed the Speaker to determine the membership of Select Committees, and for much of the history of the House, the Speaker also determined the membership of standing committees, so this idea that it somehow contradicts “what has been done forever” is false. Are you open to learning the truth about House committee membership? Do you understand the difference between Select Committees and Standing Committees? (If not, the first of the two documents that I linked to earlier describes the differences.)
In the world of Anonymous the Stupid, Pelosi gets to be prosecutor, judge, and jury. Democrats like Porter have become as disgusting as ATS.
The Dem’s chose to have a kangaroo court. We are not kangaroos, so except for the extreme that will believe anything told to them, most on learning they are being treated like kangaroos will ignore any conclusions.
Everything I said was true.
But you don’t like those truths, so you deflect, insult, and pretend to read minds.
No need to have representatives from both caucuses. New times, new rules. 6 months is not far off. With the new Pelosi Protocols,(a lot like the Biden rule for seating SCOTUS Justices) (and the Reid rule about removing cloture on Judicial nominees), things will be interesting
You are a liar, so we have to realize your sentence reads: Everything anonymous the Stupid said is a lie.
In the world of Anonymous the Stupid, Pelosi gets to be prosecutor, judge, and jury. Democrats like Porter have become as disgusting as ATS.
Everything I said was true.
True but irrelevant.
The ONLY thing the committee had was the trust of the people. By not allowing McCarthy to seat his choices, ruined any notion the committee was doing anything but a political theater.
But fear is a powerful motivator and Pelosi is scared white(r). Fear dems are out of power in 6 months,
Enigma, FWIW, historically, it was quite common for an entire committee membership to be chosen by the Speaker: “Until 1911, the Speaker had the sole authority to appoint Members to House standing committees” as well (https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Speaker-of-the-House/ ).
It’s also part of the current House rules that the Speaker can choose all of the members of non-permanent Select Committees: “House committees are of three distinct types: (1) standing committees, whose members are elected by the House, (2) select committees (also called special committees), whose members are appointed by the Speaker, and (3) joint committees, whose members are chosen according to the provisions of the statute or concurrent resolution creating them” — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-12.htm
“Until 1911, the Speaker had the sole authority to appoint Members to House standing committees”
As usual Anonymous the Stupid tell the whole story:
“But in 1910, rank-and-file Members launched a revolt against Cannon and amended House rules to rein in the powers of the Speaker. One frustrated Representative said the speakership under Cannon was “not a product of the Constitution” and the Speaker was not “entitled to be the political and legislative dictator” of the House. Cannon, in his self-defense, said he was simply implementing his party’s agenda that the American people chose. Speakers, he said, would have to sacrifice popularity to be effective. “It is as easy to find a certain kind of popularity as it is to pick up pebbles on a stony beach, and the one is worth just about as much as the other,” he said.”
There comes a point when a poster ought to lose all credibility. That time is passed for this joker.
ATS wants a dictatorship of the hard left socialist or fascist type.
Anomaly, you sound like Hitler.
To be clear, both Republicans and Democrats sometimes lie in their statements in Congress, and they’re protected by the Speech and Debate clause in the Constitution.
The J6 Committee members have not been cutting off the statements of the J6 witnesses. Witnesses are also free to present opening statements saying whatever they want, and they can also ask in the middle of their testimony to speak to something that wasn’t asked, as Cipollone did when he testified: “Can I say a word about the Vice President?” to which the Chair responded “Please [do].”
“no opportunity for the witness to tell the truth is never offered” is false.
I don’t know if you’re saying it out of ignorance or lying — you make false statements for both reasons, and you never admit when you’re wrong, even after being presented with a lot of counterevidence (an example of your silence when you’ve been corrected on a false statement: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/11/the-democratic-talking-point-on-ectopic-pregnancies-is-dangerous-disinformation/comment-page-2/#comment-2202702 )
“The J6 Committee members have not been cutting off the statements of the J6 witnesses.”
Instead the J6 Committee is cherry picking witnesses and questions. They use hearsay refuted by those that were there.
Anomaly, you make a lot of statements, but never back them up.