Journalist Matt Taibbi has filed a $10 million libel lawsuit against Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) after she allegedly made “defamatory claims on social media.”

“There is not much a person can say to a member of Congress hiding behind the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. I can however respond to a member arrogant enough to repeat defamatory claims on social media. See below for the $10 million libel lawsuit filed today,” Taibbi said.

“No woman has ever accused me of engaging in sexual harrassment once, let alone serially. See you in court. Please do not evade service,” he added.

Taibbi writes in Racket News:

Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat representing California’s 37th district in Los Angeles, began her opening remarks in a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing Tuesday with a comment directed to me. “To distract from the dumpster fire this administration is pursuing,” she said, the Republicans were “elevating a serial sexual harrasser as their star witness.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Right after the hearing, she re-tweeted the comment on X and BlueSky, writing, “After this, Republicans gave Matt Taibbi time to defend himself. It’s telling that he didn’t.”

There is not much a person like me can say to a member of Congress hiding behind the protections of the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.

One can however respond to a member arrogant enough to repeat those claims on social media. I’ve now done so, in the form of a $10 million libel lawsuit filed today in a New Jersey federal court:

Rep. Kamlager-Dove, no woman has ever accused me of engaging in sexual harrassment once, let alone serially. See you in court. Please do not evade service.

WATCH:

Per Daily Caller:

Kamlager-Dove alleged during the hearing on the “Censorship-Industrial Complex” that Republicans were “elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness” to distract “from the dumpster fire this administration is pursuing.”

Taibbi’s lawsuit states the Democratic lawmaker relied on “unverified, decades-old satirical content that had been widely discredited by prior legal action and public corrections—corrections of which she, as a public official with access to such information, was undoubtedly aware.”

“Defendant’s decision to republish the statements on X and her website, outside her legislative duties, further demonstrates an intent to harm Plaintiff’s reputation in his home state and beyond, rather than a good-faith engagement in legislative debate,” the suit continues.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.