Recent Items

Coffee Break: Bad Jacketing Katie Porter

Posted on by

Last week economically progressive California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter got the bad jacketing treatment from establishment Democrats who seized on a snippy interview she gave a local CBS station.

Bad Jacketing, Proven COINTELPRO Tactic

For those not familiar with the term, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall defined it thusly in their book Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement:

“Snitch-jacketing” or “bad-jacketing” refers to the practice of creating suspicion — through the spread of rumors, manufacture of evidence, etc — that bona fide organizational members, usually in key positions, are FBI/police informers, guilty of such offenses as skimming organizational funds and the like. The purpose of this tactic was to “isolate and eliminate” organizational leadership; such efforts were continued — and in some instances accelerated — when it became known that the likely outcome would be extreme physical violence visited upon the “jacketed” individual(s).

In our farcical 2025 timeline, these techniques have been replaced by (mostly) online analogues.

Katie Porter Has Made Many Establishment Enemies

First up, we’ve got former U.S. Representative Katie Porter who was leading the 2026 California gubernatorial race in multiple polls and fundraising.

Porter became nationally known (and a favorite at Naked Capitalism) for exchanges like this one with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jaimie Dimon:

She also earned kudos for a 2021 report on Big Pharma:

Rep. Katie Porter on Friday published a damning report revealing the devastating effects of Big Pharma mergers and acquisitions on U.S. healthcare, and recommending steps Congress should take to enact “comprehensive, urgent reform” of an integral part of a broken healthcare system.

The report, entitled Killer Profits: How Big Pharma Takeovers Destroy Innovation and Harm Patients, begins by noting that “in just 10 years, the number of large, international pharmaceutical companies decreased six-fold, from 60 to only 10.”

Porter also went viral for roasting the CEO of Abbvie, a pharmaceutical company:

Naturally, corporate Dems, led by Nancy Pelosi, pushed her off the House Financial Services Committee in 2021.

As Howie Klein reported at the time, “Pelosi has pushed her off the committee at the urging on the banksters, the Fed and Wall Street special interests. In a conversation with another member of the committee, an admirer of Porter’s, I was told that it was a combination of the Fed and Wall Street that demanded her removal.”

The Los Angeles Times had more on the feathers Porter ruffled en route to getting knifed in the back in a piece headlined, “House Democrats loved her, until she made them squirm”:

Porter recently took aim at House Democrats’ rules and traditions for what is usually a behind-the-scenes competition to determine which lawmakers sit on which coveted committees.

It was a calculated high-stakes gamble that resulted in Porter not returning this year to sit on the Financial Services Committee, one of the House’s most sought-after panels and one for which the former bankruptcy and consumer law professor was highly suited.

Her sharp-elbowed maneuvering and willingness to publicly confront party leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Los Angeles Rep. Maxine Waters underscored the brash determination that made Porter the surprise national standout of California’s 2018 House freshman class — and a strong contender for the U.S. Senate someday.

But in an institution fueled by seniority and relationships — especially within one’s own party — Porter’s tendency to ruffle feathers could cost her the allies she will need in the future in order to get legislation approved.
…
“This is a place that operates on relationships,” said one Democratic lawmaker, echoing a sentiment repeated by others but speaking on condition of anonymity. “These things don’t win Katie any friends.”
…
“It’s so hard to break out and have a national presence,” said longtime Democratic operative Bill Carrick. “She managed to be able to do that in her first term, especially on the Financial Services side.”
…
Porter immediately clashed with committee Chairwoman Waters, a powerful member of the California delegation who is close with Pelosi. In addition to balancing the needs of her party’s moderates with the boisterous newcomers, Waters, a longtime force on Democrats’ left flank, didn’t always see eye to eye with the new crop of progressives.

The first time Porter tried to use a poster board in the committee, Waters upheld a Republican objection, citing committee rules. When Porter came back to another hearing with a “Financial Services bingo” board, Waters again told her to take it down. “We’ve talked about this before,” she said.

Porter balked at Waters’ ruling. “Are we adding additional committee rules at this time?” asked Porter, whose use of such props was not an issue on the House Oversight Committee.In a show of her emerging political star power, Porter eventually got to display the bingo poster — on “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”

Heidi N. Moore summed up Porter’s greatest hits:

  • Porter didn’t just bust Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan for bullshitting, it was about something important: The willingness of Wall Street executives to pledge publicly that they were committed to winning customer trust when, in fact, Porter had proof that the company saw those statements as bullshit. Sloan resigned two weeks later.
  • Porter got JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to admit he was unable to solve basic financial problems. Such as whether a JPMorgan Chase teller taking home $29,100 annually could raise her daughter and make ends meet. Should she get a JPMorgan Chase credit card? “I don’t know,” Dimon said. Overdraft at his bank? “I don’t know,” Dimon said.
  • When Porter asked Trump Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson about real-estate owned (REO) properties, which fail to sell during foreclosure auctions, Carson replied: “Oreo?” He then said, “Real-estate…organization?” Carson didn’t know that his own agency had a ton of REO housing-loan properties, meaning they were auctioning, and failing to sell, properties rather than working with distressed home-owners. Porter had deftly illustrated the real-world problems that arise when a fake real-estate mogul gives his housing agency to a guy whose expertise was literally cutting apart twins conjoined at the head.
  • And then there was that moment that may have saved, I dunno, let’s say hundreds of thousands of people? During five minutes of questioning, Porter got Trump’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield to pledge he would use his legal authorities to make COVID tests available for free, for everyone, in March of 2020.

Schiff Rigs a Senate Race

In 2024, Porter ran for U.S. Senate where she came in third in the non-partisan primary which saw RussiaGater Adam Schiff and senescent baseball Hall of Famer Steve Garvey advance to the general election.

As Roll Call summed up the race, “Porter’s ability to raise campaign cash lagged behind Schiff’s, who brought in $32.8 million to Porter’s $28 million. Schiff’s gambit to run ads focusing on Garvey boosted the Republican’s underfunded campaign and effectively blocked Porter from winning one of the November ballot slots.”

After the loss, Porter tweeted “we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election.”

Her use of the term “rigged” was seized on by her foes in the Democratic party establishment, and the MSM. See the Politico pile-on piece headlined Katie Porter pulled a Trump move after losing. Democrats are livid.:

Porter’s claim spurred an indirect rebuke from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who wrote that California’s vote was “not rigged.” And Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who formerly oversaw California voting as the state’s top elections official, called the notion “ridiculous” without naming Porter.

“It’s not rigged,” Padilla told POLITICO. “As the former secretary of state of California, I can assure you of the integrity of the elections and the results.”

So when Porter emerged as the front-runner after Kamala Harris elected not to run, the California Democratic establishment was not happy, as shown by Politico’s piece titled “The case against Katie Porter’s inevitability”:

…there’s a crowded field of Democratic contenders now preparing to test Porter’s potential vulnerabilities, including her baggage from a failed Senate bid last year and lukewarm relationship with some powerful party insiders.

“I don’t believe this race has a front-runner in it,” said Kyle Layman, consultant to Xavier Becerra, another Democratic candidate and a former Health and Human Services secretary. “The race really started [last week]. We don’t even know where the field is at.”
…
Porter could also face a run for her money, literally. Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis already has about $9 million cash on hand between her two campaign accounts (most of which her campaign said can be transferred). Kounalakis is likely to have deep campaign pockets. She’s well connected in wealthy San Francisco circles and is the daughter of prominent developer Angelo Tsakopoulos.

Another candidate who’s pouring money into the contest is billionaire Stephen Cloobeck, who’s put in $13 million of his own wealth. All of which is to say, Porter’s fundraising prowess in past congressional runs might not translate in a statewide contest.
…
Pelosi, one of the biggest kingmakers in Democratic politics, could play an outsize role in shaping which candidate corners the support of some unions and major donors. She has already said she supports Kounalakis, her longtime ally and fellow San Franciscan.

It’s unclear if Pelosi will go to the mat for Kounalakis in the way she did for Schiff in the Senate race — a key factor that blunted Porter’s early momentum. And it’s to be seen whether the party’s two other California standard bearers — Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom — will wade into the contest.

The California establishment was waiting to pounce and Porter gave them their chance.

Crank Jacketing Katie Porter

So the stage was set when Porter sat down to be interviewed by CBS’ Julie Watts.

Watts asked a sort of stupid question, but Porter definitely made a mistake in obsessing on the question as asked rather than following the fundamental rule taught to every political candidate in media training: Ignore the question and say what you want the public to hear.

Here’s a partial transcript:

Julie Watts: What do you say to the 40% of California voters who you’ll need in order to win um who voted for Trump?

Katie Porter: How would I need them in order to win?

Watts: Ma’am, well, unless you think you’re going to get 60% of the vote. You think you’ll get 60 all everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you. That’s what what you’re saying in a general election.

Porter: Yes. If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump.

Watts: What if it’s you versus another Democrat?

Porter: I don’t intend that to be the case.

Watts: So, how do you not intend that to be the case? Do do you are you going to ask them not to run?

Porter: No. No. I’m saying I’m going to build the support. I have the support already in terms of name recognition. And so, I’m going to do the very best I can to make sure that we get through this primary in a really strong position. But let me be clear with you. I represented Orange County. I represented a purple area. I have stood on my own two feet and won Republican votes before. That’s not something every candidate in this race can say. If you’re from a deep blue area, if you’re from LA or you’re from Oakland, you haven’t you don’t have an experience.

Watts: But you just said you don’t need those Trump voters.

Porter: Well, you asked me if I needed them to win. So, you don’t need I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative. What is your question?

Watts: The question is the same thing I asked everybody that this is being called the empowering voters to stop Trump’s power grab. Every other candidate has answered this question.

Porter: This is not… I said I support it.

Watts:So, and the question is, what do you say to the 40% of voters who voted for Trump?

Porter: Oh, I’m happy to say that. It’s the do you need them to win part that I don’t understand. I’m happy to answer the answer the question as you have it written and I’ll answer it.

Watts: And we’ve also asked the other candidates, do you think you need any of those 40% of California voters to win? And you’re saying no, you don’t.

Porter: No, I’m saying I’m going to try to win every vote I can.

Watts: And what I’m saying to you is that…

Porter: Well, to those voters. Okay. So, so you I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it. Thank you.

Watts: You’re not going to do the interview with us?

Porter: Nope. Not like this. I’m not not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.

Watts: Every other candidate has answered.

Porter: I don’t care. I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation in which you ask me about every issue on this list. And if every question you’re going to make up a follow-up question, then we’re never going to get there and we’re just going to circle around.

Watts: I am an investigative.

Porter: I’ve (never) had to do this before. Ever.

Watts: You’ve never had to have a conversation with

Porter: …to end an interview.

Watts: Okay. But every other candidate has done this.

Porter: I…What part of I’m me. I’m running for governor because I’m a leader. So I am going to make…

Watts: So you’re not going to answer questions from reporters. Okay. Why don’t we go through I will continue to ask follow-up questions because that’s my job as a journalist. But I will go through and ask these and if you don’t want to answer, you don’t want to answer. So nearly every legislative donor…

Porter: I don’t want to have an unhappy experience with you and I don’t want this all on camera.

Watts:I don’t want to have an unhappy experience with you either. I would love to continue to ask these questions so that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels about every one of these issues that they care about and redistricting. It’s a massive issue. We’re going to do an entire story just on the responses to that question. And I’ve asked everybody the same follow-up questions.

Porter did not leave the interview and stayed another twenty minutes to answer Watts’ questions.

The Bad Jacketing of Katie Porter

The corporate media was quick to pounce:

The New York Times mischaracterized the exchange:

In the three-minute video, she dismissively rejected a question that suggested she needed to reach out to Republicans and threatened to abandon the interview after she was frustrated with several follow-ups.

Porter did not “dismissively rejected a question that suggested she needed to reach out to Republicans,” she objected to the premise that she needed Republican votes to win an election in a state with a 60% Democratic electorate.

The Times proceeded to let Porter’s primary opponents comment anonymously:

Fellow Democratic candidates said Ms. Porter “thinks she’s already won,” “can’t answer basic questions” and that the governor’s race is “no place for temper tantrums.” One opponent called on her to drop out of the race.

Naturally her primary opponents went on the attack:

But it was the corporate press who did most of the bad jacketing.

From New York Magazine:

Then someone leaked a 2021 exchange in which Porter snapped at a staffer to Politico.

Rhonda Elaine Foxx, a former Joe Biden and Kamala Harris staffer joined the pile on:

Heidi Moore pointed out the glass houses aspect of a former Kamala Harris staffer going after Porter on this issue:

David Sirota made some good points:

Yashar Ali actually has a good suggestion for Porter, although I doubt his sincerity:

This is a disheartening dynamic I’ve been seeing since the demolition of Howard Dean in 2004. Any Democratic candidate with populist appeal and a willingness to take on the power structure must be absolutely perfect at all times.

If someone like Katie Porter makes even the slightest mistake, the Democratic party establishment and corporate media go for the kill.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
32 comments

    1. mrsyk

      Condemned to obscurity by the same corporate media who are all too eager to sabotage Porter’s campaign? He must be up to date on his taxes, so he’s getting the invisible treatment.

      Reply ↓
  2. Matthew

    Sadly, this is testimony to the fact that the media can now seize on a total nothing-burger of a moment and render it toxic enough to harm a progressive, mild though she may be.

    Reply ↓
  3. Socal Rhino

    This did strike me as a coordinated media attack complete with commentators immediately declaring her candidacy dead.

    I have no idea if Porter would be an effective governor of this one-party state. Her ability to navigate these attacks is an early indication, I guess.

    Reply ↓
  4. dday

    I found Watts initial question to be confusing as did Porter. Porter doesn’t need any of the 40% California Trump voters to win a two way race.

    Reply ↓
    2. Socal Rhino

      Not necessarily true. In California the two top vote getters in the primary move on to the general election regardless of party affiliation.

      Reply ↓
      1. Laura in So Cal

        CA Current Voter registration:

        Democrats. 46.2%
        Republicans 24.7%
        No party. 21.9%
        Minor parties. 7.2%

        The reporter was using the shorthand of 60/40 based on Trump getting 38% of the California vote in 2024.

        The reporters question was legit one that should have been a slam dunk for Porter since as she later states she was elected to Congress from a purple district in Orange County. Her initial response was a real turn-off to someone like me who is a “no party” voter. It said “I don’t want your vote”.

        I was a fan of Porter’s. I love anyone in the public sphere who actually pays attention to data and numbers even if I don’t always agree with their conclusions. And I truly love a white board. But after reading her book when it came out, I lost a bit of my enthusiasm (it felt entitled and inauthentic) and what I saw in her Senate race wasn’t any better.

        She seems to have some fundamental disagreements with establishment democrats, but refuses to actually come out and be critical of them in any way. They won’t back her, but she still wants to be part of the in crowd and keeps trying to suck up. Reminds me of Bernie Sanders a bit.
        Finally, supporting prop 50 is a no for me. CA voted twice to put redistricting into the hands of an independent commission and now the Democrat party with a super majority in both legislative houses and every state wide elected position spends $$ we can’t afford to hold a special election to reverse those prior votes.

        Reply ↓
  5. Lee

    “…the Democratic party establishment and corporate media go for the kill.”

    I would hazard the view that their electoral lethality is on the wane. Ever the giddy optimist, me.

    Reply ↓
  7. RookieEMT

    Part of me is quite silly, wanting to jump into the political arena.

    I will never win as a ‘progressive’. The FDR branch has been dead for 30+ years.

    The only option left is to be a terrorist, tear the party apart from the inside. Sow chaos and direct people elsewhere.

    Reply ↓
    1. amfortas

      yeah, its this sort of mudslinging that disabused me of running for office, almost 30 years ago.
      of course, back then, the mud would come from GOP true believers investigating me, and my storied life.
      and the orgy vids that are likely floating around out there,lol.
      now, it’s my own erstwhile party that is the biggest threat.

      and the dems wonder why i wont vote for their corporate lawyers and cia analysts,lol

      a billionaire is a policy failure, after all.

      Reply ↓
  8. DJG, Reality Czar

    Nat Wilson Turner: Many thanks for this explanation. Your years close to campaigns give you insight that I just don’t have.

    And:
    This is a disheartening dynamic I’ve been seeing since the demolition of Howard Dean in 2004. Any Democratic candidate with populist appeal and a willingness to take on the power structure must be absolutely perfect at all times.

    Now why was I thinking of the wonderful Nina Turner over and over as I read your essay? Who was unflappable during her campaigns and is very good at making tightly organized arguments. Yet, well, there was that flaw of being black.

    Now why was I having a flashback to Iowa and Pete Buttigieg announcing that he had won the caucuses over Bernie Sanders and those dangerous Bernie Bros (so many of whom turn out to be Bernie Sisters) even before the results were completely reported? Fortunately, we were all treated to further adventures of Pete learning Nynorsk or Bokmal or both or something.

    Sirota, who usually doesn’t make too many missteps must be desperate to find Republican examples. I would never lump FDR and LBJ in with Trump and McCain. FDR and LBJ (particularly LBJ) may have been great at back-room deals, but they also had rhetorical skills that allowed them to attract the U.S. populace to major legislative programs. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” is not “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

    Reply ↓
      1. Skeptical Scott

        Which proves that, no matter what, politicians cannot go against the interests of big business moneyed interests.
        I remember the absurd take-down of Howard Dean (The Dean Scream) happened because his platform was Nationalized Healthcare. The electorate is too stupid to see through the propaganda, and he dropped out.

        That event, for me, proved that we don’t have a democracy.

        Reply ↓
      3. ChrisRUEcon

        > and yet the establishment still hates her.

        The scale of Dem establishment policy hatred probably has economic populism as the forever #1 (see also Bernie Sanders), so #Natch.

        Reply ↓
    2. urdsama

      This post made me rethink my attitude towards Porter and even feel somewhat ashamed that I fell for it. But your comment reminded me of her positions on Gaza and the Russia/Ukraine war and I’m back to a definite no. Since these were deciding issues for me with Harris, I can hardly then support someone else with the same views.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ben Joseph

        Don’t feel bad. She has no comportment. See the video of her cursing staff for being in the background. Her political leaning has little to do with her career dead-ending. Her lack of equanimity is her undoing.

        Reply ↓
    3. Cas

      Fortunately, the governor of California doesn’t control USA foreign policy.
      p.s. there are no perfect candidates. The question is would Porter be a beter governor than the other viable candidates.

      Reply ↓
  10. Adam Eran

    I’ve always found Porter to be a bit of a show boat, but that’s where politics are right now. Better a show boat who stands up for ordinary people than the slick Obama sleaze (always a nice guy, except perhaps when bombing Libya), or the 1″ deep Donald (all tactics, no strategy).

    The combative interview made me defiant, too. So hold on, Katie, our check is on the way!

    Reply ↓
  11. Thasiet

    Sirota’s tweet is seriously understating the case. LBJ got a pass, and he peed on a secret service agent.

    This is a disheartening dynamic I’ve been seeing since the demolition of Howard Dean in 2004. Any Democratic candidate with populist appeal and a willingness to take on the power structure must be absolutely perfect at all times.

    True, and as Mohammad El-Kurd has so eloquently pointed out in his book Perfect Victims, literally the exact same standard is what gets applied to Palestinian activists. Because the land, like the government, has been stolen fair and square, and just who do you think you are to think that you should ever deserve it back?

    Reply ↓
  12. David in Friday Harbor

    I’ve always admired Katie Porter and if I still lived in California I’d be a supporter — although just like with every other politician I don’t always agree with her stances on everything.

    What’s troubling here is the transparently coordinated national media hatchet-job on behalf of the Democrat establishment. It is the Democrats who created our system of Inverted totalitarianism in which Billionaires control the state and the democratic process is blocked through total control of ballot access by a tiny cabal of corporate lobbyists — not our would-be caudillo. It is they who are the enemies of democracy who have alienated the plurality of eligible voters who have stopped participating in elections.

    Reply ↓
    1. amfortas

      yeah, this.

      “democrts are the more effective evil”.-Glen Ford.

      the clintons gave the demparty a cancer, and its only now become terminal.
      (really, it started with Carter, whom i liked, for the most part)
      infusions of money from their new shady friends, and an early dominance on messaging and psyops, and then the Web!
      and it was effective chemo.
      but that chemo no longer works.

      i look forward to their demise.

      Reply ↓
      1. JohnnyGL

        Spitzer seems so tame, compared to what it took to get rid of Cuomo.

        In today’s political world, he could have gotten past it, if he played it right.

        Reply ↓
      2. Eclair

        I will never get the image of Spitzer having sex with his socks on out of my brain! And I was 100% behind Spitzer! That was a brilliant meme (is that the correct term for spreading the perfect image that will destroy someone’s credibility? Lambert …. where are you?!)

        Reply ↓
  15. ambrit

    A good primer on the present day victory of style over substance in what passes for politics in America.
    Social media have become our Soma. The techniques change while the strategy stays the same.
    Time to bust loose.
    Stay safe.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *