California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer has run on the slogan of “actions speak louder than words.” It may now be time for him to prove it and bring a defamation action against opponent Katie Porter for her accusations that he engaged in dirty politics. Porter used a CNN interview to accuse Steyer of finding and leaking the infamous video of her abusing a staffer and yelling “Get out of my f**king shot.”
Katie Porter’s campaign for governor has languished at around ten percent, even after the implosion of Eric Swalwell as the frontrunner among Democratic candidates. At times, she appears to be seeking to win by profanity rather than policies, holding up signs reading “F**k Trump” and other insults.
On CNN’s Inside Politics, however, Porter may have gone too far with her rhetoric. She told Dana Bash that it was Steyer who stabbed her in the back with the video:
“Well, given that Tom Steyer is the person who leaked the video with me and the staffer from five years ago, he pretty clearly wanted to be governor bad enough to knock me down to do it.”
Steyer’s campaign immediately denied the allegation, insisting (through spokesperson Sepi Esfahlani) “Tom has nothing to do with that video,. This is an attempt from Katie Porter to deflect from her past mistakes. Katie Porter only has one person to blame for her standing in the race, and it’s herself.”
As for Bash, the host clearly wanted to set the network apart from Porter’s claims, stating at the end of the interview “I should note that we don’t have evidence that Steyer leaked that video of you. If you have it, please bring it.”
That evidence has not been forthcoming.
The question is whether Porter has produced a more viable defamation case than a political campaign.
At the outset, Steyer would face the higher burden as a public figure.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard, requiring public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The standard was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
Steyer is a full public figure.
Yet, if Porter has no evidence of his connection to the videotape, this could satisfy either the actual malice or the reckless disregard elements.
However, is it defamatory to accuse a fellow politician of playing dirty?
The release of the videotape was not a criminal act and Porter does not suggest such a violation in her accusation. She is simply saying that Steyer will do most anything to win, including dirty tricks.
Richard Nixon, Hillary Clinton, and others have been accused of dirty tricks in politics. It is a standard accusation in politics.
Yet, Steyer has denied the allegation, so Porter is also effectively calling him a liar.
AS WAS ROE V WADE, DEFAMATION LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
_____________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;….
________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
The text of the First Amendment reads exactly as follows: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” When applying a strict, literal interpretation to this text: The absolute phrase used by the law is “no law.” Defamation (slander and libel) consists entirely of words, which fit the definition of speech. The text contains no written exceptions or qualifications for defamation. Therefore, under a strict, literal reading of the written text of the First Amendment, the law states that speech, which includes defamation, shall not be abridged.
________________________________________________
The legislative, judicial, and executive branches hold no power to “interpret,” modify, amend, or modify by interpretation the fundamental law of the U.S., which may only be amended through the process prescribed in Article 5.
No state law that deprives a person of his absolute right to and freedom of speech and the press is constitutional.
Dirty tricks is all the Democrats have left, everything they do is a failure. It’s hard to run for office on failure.
Are you stoned? Seriously. You speak of being difficult to run on failure–but that is the defining feature of Republicans. Just look at the economy–the cost of grocery staples is the highest it has been in years. The cost of fuel, due solely to Trump’s stupid and illegal war, is breaking budgets and driving up the cost of fertilizer and diesel fuel, making the cost of planting even higher for farmers. That means that grocery prices will keep rising. After lying about knowing anything about Project 2025 because polls showed that the majority of us oppose it, Trump is fully implementing it, to the detriment of this country. Trump is losing the Iran war–badly–polls prove Americans are sick to death of him and his lies about nonexistent success. The Strait of Hormuz was open before he started the bombing, and Iran clearly has the upper hand. His approval ratings remain in the toilet. What to do–gerrymander the midterms, which is what Republicans are doing in red states–trying to slice up districts with black and Democrat voters after the illegitimate SCOTUS green lighted doing this–destroying the last vestige of the Voting Rights Act. Trump cannot handle the fact that he and his agenda are unpopular and that Republicans are poised to lose the midterms, so he has to cheat to try to deprive Americans a voice in their future because Republicans cannot “win” on their record or on a level playing field. From Wikipedia:
“Beginning in July 2025, several U.S. states have redrawn or are in the process of redrawing their congressional districts ahead of the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections. These efforts mark one of the largest coordinated attempts to redraw congressional districts between decennial censuses in modern American history.
The redistricting began when Texas gerrymandered its congressional map to benefit Republicans upon President Donald Trump’s request.[1] Republican-led states Missouri and North Carolina soon followed by passing new congressional maps with the aim of gaining more Republican seats. In response, Democratic-led states began the process of gerrymandering their own congressional maps to counter Republican gains. California was the first, passing an amendment to redraw the state’s congressional map to benefit Democrats. Virginia followed and also passed an amendment to redraw their districts as well, which was subsequently invalidated by the Virginia Supreme Court. (Furthermore, Ohio was required to redraw its districts since the previous map did not receive bipartisan support in the state legislature as required by the Ohio Constitution. Likewise, Utah was required to redraw due to the Utah Supreme Court striking down the current map as an unlawful partisan gerrymander.)
Following the 2026 Louisiana v. Callais decision, which limited challenges to gerrymandered maps using the Voting Rights Act of 1965, several Southern states began to consider joining the redistricting wave. Florida called a special session for redistricting in anticipation of the ruling; Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves said he would call for a special session as well.[2]”
The governor of Louisiana invalided over 40,000 ballots that were already cast. What does Trump have to run on? All he has done is fail. He has alienated our EU and NATO allies, abandoned Ukraine, started a war without any clear agenda or exit strategy, and is intending to pull troops out of Germany. China has moved into the role the US played in Africa. He has insulted Canada by suggesting that we’ll take it over and make it another state; he insulted Denmark by suggesting that the US will take it over as well, and is floating the idea of making Venezuela the 51st state. Without seeking any permission from historic preservation or Congress, he tore down part of the White House to build a vanity project that no one wants, lied about the cost–$200 million, all from donors, then $400 million, and now, $1 billion, from the US taxpayers. He’s trying to build some kind of arch dedicted to himself and his ego. He has been forced to reimburse companies that imported goods that he subjected to illegal tariffs to the tune of billions, along with interest. And, how many court battles has he lost? Dozens and dozens. Then, there’s the retribution campaign that is also failing badly.
Democracy is on the line now because Republicans simply cannot accept that the will of the American people is to vote them out of office because they deserve it–they refuse to stand up to Trump.
ANON is stoned!
Stoner- Blaming every national problem on one man isn’t analysis — it’s a shortcut for avoiding reality. Prices rise because global markets move, not because a single politician twitches. Fuel costs follow OPEC, supply chains, and geopolitics, not a fantasy war narrative. Project 2025 is a think‑tank document, not a governing decree.
Gerrymandering? Both parties do it whenever they get the chance. Pretending otherwise is selective outrage. And the dramatic claims — mass ballot purges, rogue White House demolition, billion‑dollar ego monuments — need evidence, not volume.
If democracy is at risk, exaggeration won’t save it. Facts will. Accountability will. But turning complex national issues into a one‑villain story isn’t defending democracy — it’s abandoning seriousness.
wow. Your comment may well have been the oddest rant of the day. Kudos, sir. Or ma’am. Ask your caregiver to change your bedding as you seem to have s##t it.
I liked Schwarzenneger. I wasn’t alone.
These hair-splitting definitions of “a public person” — appearing NOWHERE in Congressional statute — a 100% invention of Supreme Court justices — are a total affront to “equal protection under the law” guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. They are an affront to an egalitarian, honorific notion of civility, where all citizens granted access to public media bear responsibility for civility and authenticity.
Just because a whacko 1960s SCOTUS made something up doesn’t make it legitimate. We need a good test case to have SCOTUS reconsider Sullivan in light of equal rights to defamation deterrence for all citizens, regardless of station.
The Sullivan precedent is a major factor in good, competent leaders no longer willing to subject themselves to the rancid infowarfare expected when running for office.
You referencing Billy Brennan on the Warren Court?
Pbinca – I’m with you on this. As a bit of a nit-pick, I would point out it has nothing to do with a congressional statute. Scotus cooked up the “actual malice” standard as an interpretation of First Amendment law.
Still, the standard has no basis in the text of the First Amendment, and is facially absurd. I tend to agree it violates equal protection, but unfortunately it can’t be challenged on that basis since it’s an interpretation of a clause in the Constitution (this is where my nit-pick comes into play).
But, again, it was just cooked up out of thin air by Scotus and is ridiculous. Sullivan needs to be disapproved so that the implementation of state defamation laws can return to sanity.
The “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom or speech, or of the press” I interpret to mean criminal law meted out via prosecution.
Civil law meted out through lawsuits by citizens is in a completely different category, with defamation and other frauds roped of as exceptions to free speech. The harshest punishment is financial — you can’t be imprisoned.
So, explain how 1A even pertains to a party sued in a civil defamation action.
The language, “abridging,” is not limited to criminal laws. Civil laws, or agency rulings, or court-imposed gag rules, can also abridge freedom of speech and are subject to challenge on under the First Amendment.
With that said, Scotus could not validly say, “This gag rule is constitutional because you have blue eyes, but if you had brown eyes it would be struck down.” That is an extreme example to illustrate the point: Scotus cannot validly say, “You’re a public figure, therefore state laws allowing for civil recovery of defamation damages are limited for you, but they are not similarly limited for private figures.”
Please cite the Constitution for any power of the judicial branch to modify, by interpretation or any other means, any part of the Constitution.
The judicial branch enjoys only the power to judge, not modify, amend, or reinterpret.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
I’ll 2nd that, binca.
I don’t see why she didn’t accuse him of raping her in a Santa Monica Macy’s dressing room 35 years ago. And then sue him for defamation if he denied it. Maybe that’s just slightly harder to pull off in CA than NY.
Steyer isn’t noted for his extreme drunkenness? He’s not blind and in a wheelchair?
I don’t see the connection. How is it possible for E. Jean Carroll to “have have made the whole thing up to smear Trump (the Republican Presidential candidate)”? Wouldn’t she have needed a crystal ball in the early ’90s? I mean, she did tell a fellow reporter a week after the incident occurred — that’s what convinced the jury that it couldn’t have been made up decades later as a political hit job. Juries are good with timelines and facts. Social media addicts, no so much. Trump, terrible when something makes him look bad.
She’s a perv in reality.
It is not plausible that she failed to report something as serious as rape to police while reporting it to another woman.
And what the —- did the other woman say and do?
It is not plausible that there was, 30 years ago, and remains absolutely no evidence of any kind.
The corrupt judge was compelled by the dearth of factual evidence to toss this case summarily.
It would be more plausible that she attacked him.
Perhaps a court one day will take judicial notice of the fact that Democrats routinely engage in dirty politics 😂
I’m with @dustoff on this one “It’s funny, get over it”. Frankly, Califoreichstag is just boring. Ignore the troll culture there and stop sending them my tax dollars. They voted for it, they deserve what they are getting. If you are looking for one person in that society who supports democracy there – good luck, needle in haystacks.
The United Virginia Socialist Republic (UVSR) – same story. They are ruled by the commuting apparatchik established the last 16 years by the deep state swamp rats (ex: 80,000 IRS to destroy and loot “political enemies” and 20,000 to create a bureaucratic udarnik collective domination [aka USDA] that has destroyed our agricultural heroes [more than 160,000 family owned farms at last count, not to mention just about every meat processing plant not owned by “brazil”], but VERY helpful in establishing foreign investment oligarchies that buy them off the ruined/bankrupt auction block) . Inhaling that rodent poop is subject to hantavirus infection.
Calif, if citizens were counted and not noncitizens for apportionment how many districts would cease to exist? Exodus
Porter making that accusation is an example of poor tactical judgment. I had forgotten about that video, but hearing the accusation immediately watched it again, as did I suspect thousands of California voters. It leaves a far worse impression than an accusation of leaking without evidence.
Every last one of you who says mean things about Katie Porter should watch out for steaming potatoes.
None of this makes any sense to me. First, it’s impossible for Steyer to have leaked the video. He did not produce it. It was an outtake from a zoom call Porter did with some third party. Not Steyer or his campaign. Whoever transferred the video to the Steyer campaign is the so called “leaker”.
Second, I don’t see how Steyer is defamed by Porter’s assertion that he “leaked” the video, even if his campaign had absolutely nothing to do with producing, publishing, or amplifying it. It’s her opinion that he or his campaign did.
It’s not like we live in a culture in which truthfulness, honor, veracity, integrity, etc. are valued. That died LONG ago when duels died. So how is he harmed by her assertion, even if it is completely false?
None of it makes sense to me.
I love J. Turley.
WOW! Perfect satire movie material. Imagining this whole Porter–Steyer defamation mess as a political comedy is spot on— absolutely tracks.
✔️Porter as the chaotic protagonist — a candidate stuck at 10%, swinging between profanity, campaign chaos, and accidental scandals.
✔️The leaked video as the inciting incident — the “Get out of my f**king shot!” moment is pure political‑farce energy.
✔️Steyer as the straight‑man foil — calm billionaire candidate suddenly dragged into a defamation circus he didn’t ask for.
✔️CNN as the Greek chorus — Dana Bash politely saying “If you have evidence, please bring it” is comedic gold.
✔️The lawsuit-that-might-happen — the whole plot hinges on whether he sues, turning the campaign into a courtroom‑campaign hybrid.
✔️Campaigns so dull the lawsuit becomes the plot — exactly the columnist’s punchline.
I think it would be helpful if a political psychologist would step in and explain to everyone, including the candidates, on the source and symptoms of histrionic behavior.
I don’t think he would have a case. Even if she can’t prove that he leaked the clip, she can assert that she honestly believes he did it, based on her low opinion of his character and on her assessment that of all the people who could have done it he is the most likely.
Consider that most Republicans, including me, honestly believe that Burisma’s payments to Hunter Biden were a bribe for his father, and he was merely the bagman, earning a 50% commission for collecting the bribe and passing it on. Now none of us were privy to the private discussions between Biden Jr and Burisma, so we can’t prove that this is what happened, but it seems to us to be by far the most likely explanation, indeed the only one that makes sense, so we are convinced that it is so. Therefore there is no reckless disregard of the truth, and thus no “actual malice” in Sullivan‘s formulation, and he would not succeed in an action for defamation.
Likewise here, even if Steyer can prove that he didn’t leak the clip, he can’t prove that Porter knew this, or that she did not honestly believe it to be so.
The one element that was studiously avoided in the Biden case was the financial records of Joe Biden. An audit would have revealed the truth.
Katie is fat, strike one. Katie is ugly, strike two. Katie is not black, strike three. Katie, you’re out!
Hey Darren, sick comment, delete it.
She wasn’t black, but the rest didn’t stop a New York jury from giving millions to way-too-old-for-Trump E Jean Carroll. (No, he’s not a pedophile either)
If SETI instead broadcast political news into space, we could guarantee that no aliens will ever visit Earth.
Stupid comment.
It’s funny, get over it.
It’s Neverland. NEVER land…
They know.
Or hit it with a galactic nuke!
Katie Porter is her own worst enemy. Her hair-trigger defensiveness is devoid of cleverness and only displays insecurity. She may be the most thoroughly unlikeable person since Bela Lugosi.
One can say that about every politician.