Katie Porter breaks out dictionary to defend her claim that she lost election by 20 points because it was 'rigged'

Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) found herself trying to play lexicographer on Wednesday after claiming she lost a primary election because it was rigged against her.

On Super Tuesday, Porter lost the primary election for the late Dianne Feinstein's U.S. Senate seat. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and Republican Steve Garvey were the top two candidates in the open primary, each achieving more than 30% of the vote. Porter came in third place with 13.9% of the vote.

Porter responded to her embarrassing loss by claiming that billionaires had spent millions of dollars "to rig this election." That, she suggested, is why she lost.

The outrageous claim — for which Porter offered not a shred of evidence — was widely mocked by Republicans, Democrats, and the media.

But that didn't stop Porter from doubling down.

Instead of eating her slice of humble pie, Porter tried to play a game of semantics and defended her claim about a "rigged" election.

In a follow-up statement, she said:

"Rigged" means manipulated by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10 million+ on attack ads against me, included an ad rated "false" by an independent fact checker. That is dishonest means to manipulate the outcome. I said "rigged by billionaires" and our politics are — in fact — manipulated by big dark money. Defending democracy means calling that out.

There are two problems with Porter's statement.

First, the word "rigged" does technically mean "to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means" or "to fix in advance for a desired result," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. But Porter is rigging her statement because the election was by no means rigged. Nobody manipulated or controlled it by deceptive means, and no one fixed it in advance for a specific outcome.

Nothing illegal happened to cause Porter to lose by 20 points; that was her accomplishment.

Second, Porter is not being honest. The "independent fact checker" that she cited is the Sacramento Bee, and the fact check to which she referred did not conclude with a ruling of "false." The rating was "mostly false" because, according to the Bee, the ad in question is "misleading." The ad claimed that "Big Pharma," "Big Oil," and "Big Bank" supported Porter's campaign.

The Bee, in fact, discovered that a pharmaceutical company, oil company, and bank did support Porter. But it was ruled "mostly false" because the bank services Asian Americans, while the oil company and pharmaceutical companies are not part of their industry's lobbying groups.

Splitting hairs, no doubt — and perhaps even "rigged" in Porter's favor.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!