CNS Readers Unload Their Misogyny on Sandra Fluke Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented the misogyny and gay-bashing the readers of CNSNews.com have become known for in the website's comment sections. The readers show their classlessness once again in an Aug. 16 CNS article by Susan Jones on "a brief interview on MSNBC" with Sandra Fluke. Jones didn't mention that tirade of misogyny Rush Limbaugh hurled at her, though she makes sure to mention that Fluke "posed for a glamor shoot in Vogue's September issue."
And it appears that the slut-shaming skills of CNS readers haven't abated, for they attack Fluke with renewed sneering vitriol, with multiple regurgitations of Limbaugh's "slut" insult:
CNS polices its forums very lightly, if at all, and such vileness is typically tolerated, if not encouraged by posting such articles in the first place.
recently posed for a glamor shoot in Vogue's September issue. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sandra-fluke-republicans-cant-win-female-vote-until-their-policies-change#sthash.041M0Y11.dpuf
WND Columnist: Bring Back the Poorhouse! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Chastain writes in her Aug. 14 WorldNetDaily column:
Some of you are old enough to remember an admonition from your parents to work hard and save a portion of what you earn so that “you don’t wind up in the poorhouse.” That was a fate worse than death to my father’s generation because it signified abject failure, loss of pride and a complete dependence on welfare, most likely for the remainder of one’s life.
The poorhouse, or more commonly the poor farm, was a place of last resort for those who could not support themselves in the 19th and early 20th century. Residents were required to work, to the extent they were able, in order to provide for their daily needs. Accommodations were sparse, and pleasures were few.
Most of our parents and grandparents of that era didn’t have big houses or drive fancy cars, but they had good-sized savings accounts. Why? When hard times come – and they invariably do – our folks didn’t want to end up in the poorhouse.
Chastain's justification for her poorhouse nostalgia? A Fox News program:
Last week, Fox News aired a special, “The Great Food Stamp Binge,” that should be required viewing for every American. The star of the show was a 29-year-old musician/surfer name Jason Greenslate. Jason is leading and promoting “The Rat Life” – living off others – so that he can wake up at noon, spend his days on the beach hitting on chicks and his nights drinking and partying with friends.
Jason proudly held up his EBT card, which was designed to look like a credit card to take away the stigma of using food stamps. He walked reporter John Roberts through the ease of obtaining such a card and then took Roberts grocery shopping where he hit the gourmet section and finished off with a lobster.
Jason is an example of why we need the modern-day equivalent of the poorhouse, where all individuals and families going through hard times and have no resources can go to be cared for and helped to get back on their feet. While there, all able-bodied people would be expected to pull their own weight and share chores. Entertainment would be minimal. One’s free time would be spent on education and job training. Once marketable skills are achieved, an agency would place these people in real jobs.
Chastain won't tell you that Greenslate is hardly representative of the typical food stamp recipient, or that the Fox News special was specifically designed to denigrate food stamp users as "losers" (which a Fox News reporter did, in fact, call them during the show).
Noel Sheppard Defends Trump's Right To Not Be Asked About His Birtherism Topic: NewsBusters
Is Noel Sheppard a secret birther? The way he's defending Donald Trump, he just might be.
In an Aug. 14 NewsBusters post, Sheppard blames ABC's Jonathan Karl for having the temerity to bring up Trump's longtime birtherism in an interview with him last week, and he parroted Trump's protests that he would never have talked about President Obama's birth certificate if Karl hadn't brought it up. "Not surprisingly, Trump was right," Sheppard added.
Sheppard did concede that "Trump could end all this birther discussion by simply saying that he has moved on and wants to now exclusively talk about what's ailing the nation," but he then huffs that "it's clear that the media want to discuss the birther issue moving into the 2014 midterm elections in order to depict Republicans as being racist." We didn't know Sheppard could read the minds of reporters to divine that purported motivation
Sheppard followed that up by pushing an old Republican canard:
Readers should recall George Stephanopoulos bringing up birth control at a Republican presidential debate in January 2012 despite this not being an issue during the campaign up to that point.
This of course metastacized into the Republican War on Women with everyone in the media piling on a contrived controversy.
In fact, as Media Matters reminds us, debate participant Rick Santorum had been asked about his views on birth control -- which included that states have a right to ban it -- a few days earlier.
Does Sheppard think the public had no right to know about that stance? Apparently so.
WorldNetDaily has long served as a mouthpiece anti-gay activist Scott Lively and whitewashed just how virulent and Draconian his gay-bashing views are. It does so again in a Sept. 16 article by Bob Unruh on the latest developments in a lawsuit against Lively for his anti-gay activism.
Unruh follows in his employer's footsteps by misleadingly portraying Lively's actions in Uganda as merely engaging in "biblical preaching ... against homosexual behavior." In fact, as we've documented, Lively has been accused of working with anti-gay Ugandans to propose a law that would permit the death penalty for mere homosexuality.
Unruh is reporting a judge's ruling that a lawsuit against Lively from Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) can proceed. It's telling that Unruh does not provide a link to the ruling, which gives him free rein to mischaracterize and even lie what it says.
Right off the bat, Unruh tells a lie by writing, "SMUG alleges Lively must be punished for criticizing homosexuality, calling his speech a 'crime against humanity' in violation of 'international law.'" In fact, SMUG has stated that "none of Plaintiff’s claims are predicated on any speech or writing of the Defendant, odious and ignorant as they may be. His speech is merely circumstantial evidence of the discriminatory intent and motive behind his campaign to deprive LGBTI persons of fundamental rights and thus admissible to help prove the elements of the conspiracy to persecute."
Unruh also claims that the judge in the case "sided with the 'gays' in his first paragraph, explaining that while SMUG is made up of groups “that advocate for the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people,' Lively is an 'American citizen residing in Springfield, Mass., who, according to the complaint, holds himself out to be an expert on what he terms the ‘gay movement.’” Unruh does not explain how an accurate description of both parties in the lawsuit constitues having "sided with the 'gays'" (WND traditionally and illogically puts "gays" in scare quotes).
Unruh writes that "Lively sought to have the complaint dismissed recently when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Alien Tort Statute doesn’t apply to foreign territory. The court said the law cannot be used to challenge foreign conduct in courts in the United States. The ruling came down in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum." But Unruh doesn't explain the judge's finding that Kiobel does not apply to Lively:
Two facts alleged in this case distinguish it from Kiobel. First, unlike the British and Dutch corporations, Defendant is an American citizen residing within the venue of this court in Springfield, Massachusetts. Second, read fairly, the Amended Complaint alleges that the tortious acts committed by Defendant took place to a substantial degree within the United States, over many years, with only infrequent actual visits to Uganda.
The fact that the impact of Defendant’s conduct was felt in Uganda cannot deprive Plaintiff of a claim. Defendant’s alleged actions in planning and managing a campaign of repression in Uganda from the United States are analogous to a terrorist designing and manufacturing a bomb in this country, which he then mails to Uganda with the intent that it explode there.
The rest of Unruh's article uncritically rehashes Lively's defense without any mention of claims by SMUG that rebut them.
MRC Mocks Transgenders In Video Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center videographer Dan Joseph apparently thought that his employer's anti-gay agenda wasn't being pushed hard enough lately, so he got it into his head to mock transgender teens.
And he put it all on video, of course.
In a Aug. 15 video he posted at CNSNews.com -- proudly labeled "MRCTV Original Programming" -- Joseph starts off by explaining what he thinks is the impact of the recently approved student transgender rights law in California: "So if a teenage boy says he feels like a girl on the inside, he can now go and use the girls' locker room to shower, change, whatever. Now, most people would say this idea is, you know, insane."
So the sneering, derogatory tone is there from the get-go. Joseph then went to "a college campus where everybody's tolerant and open-minded" to gauge reaction. Actually, he went to Virginia's George Mason University, famed for its rightward-skewed economics department, so the school is probably not as "tolerant and open-minded" as Joseph wants you to think. Also, the fall semester hasn't started yet -- and won't for a couple more weeks -- so what students he was able to stumble across on an August day probably aren't representative of the student body at large.
After gathering his non-representative sample of people walking on the George Mason campus, Joseph then chooses to embarrass himself by filming himself pretending to be a transgender student who wants to use the girls' locker room.
To pull off this cunning deception, Joseph dresses in gym shorts and a tank top. Oh, and he speaks with a lisp, because, you know, transgender.
And here's what he said to one girl he tries to badger into letting him into the girls' locker room (captured on a hidden camera, as the awkwardly angled image above shows):
Excuse me, are you going into the locker room? My name is Dan, I'm a transgender, so that means I have the man parts but, you know, inside I feel more like a woman. I was just wondering, is it OK if I go in there, with you in there to change and shower and stuff? Because I don't feel comfortable in the men's area, you know. It's just weird. Is that OK with you?
Apparently, this is how Joseph thinks transgenders act.
Meanwhile, in real life outside of Joseph's right-wing fantasies, the California law merely affirms existing protections, there have been no reported problems, and similar laws have had the effect of reduced bulling and enhanced school performance.
But Joseph won't tell you about this, because he's being paid to mock transgenders, not to tell the truth about them.
WND's Massie Spews More Dishonest Obama-Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie's Aug. 12 WorldNetDaily column is largely a greatest hits collection of his dishonest, seething hatred of President Obama. But he has somehow managed to embrace a few new dishonesties in the process.
John C. Drew, Ph.D., the award-winning political scientist, met Obama in 1980. In 2011 Drew wrote: “[Obama] believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. … Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory … ‘there’s going to be a revolution.’ Obama said, ‘we need to be organized and grow the movement.’ In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.”
But Drew didn’t stop there. Drew was at that time a Marxist himself and disagreed with Obama on how to bring about a revolution. Drew supported Barrington Moore’s theory that “a Russian or Chinese style revolution – leading to communism – was only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.”
Drew ended his article by saying, “I know something about what Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary.”
As we've documented, Drew met Obama only twice in his life, both during social occasions, making it highly unlikely that he could have made such sweeping conclusions of Obama's purported nature based on a pair of brief, casual encounters. Further, some of Drew's details about Obama have been discredited by actual college friends of Obama.
Further, Massie's depiction of Drew as an "award-winning political scientist" is taking straight from Drew own self-depiction, of which there is scant evidence to support.
Massie goes on to write:
In 2011, Obama gave a speech that at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kan. The highlight of the speech, as I wrote at the time, was it was there that he uttered the now infamous words “limited government and rugged individualism [don't] work and [have] never worked.” But what goes unaddressed pursuant to that speech was that communists from every corner of America praised his speech. That Osawatomie was the name of the revolutionary newspaper published by the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground, which was headed by Obama’s good friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, is of note and provides further proof of Obama’s propensity to engage in code-speak with his Neo-Leninist comrades.
But Massie is dishonestly taking Obama out of context and cobbled together to form a quote that doesn't exist in reality. Here's what Massie left out (with the brief out-of-context parts inb old):
Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.
Obama never said "limited government" during the speech, making Massie's fabrication even more dishonest and depraved.
AIM's Kincaid: S.E. Cupp Isn't A Real Conservative Because She Doesn't Hate Gays Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid writes in an Aug. 14 Accuracy in Media column:
As a veteran of CNN’s Crossfire in the 1980s, I am intrigued by the channel’s decision to bring back the liberal-conservative debate format show. When I was on the program, the motto was, “Don’t talk while I’m interrupting.” The “liberals” on the show this time around are partisan Obama Democrats. In fact, one of them, Van Jones, is possibly to the left of Obama.
Former Speaker of the House and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, one of the announced conservative co-hosts, can easily take on the liberals and hold his own. His back-up, Sarah Elizabeth “S.E.” Cupp, is a former MSNBC host and intellectual lightweight. She is a self-declared atheist who has been campaigning for homosexual marriage. She is a member of “Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry,” a gay-rights front group.
Cupp may be “on the right” on many issues, but on homosexuality, a major controversy that can only get hotter in the months ahead, she is on the liberal side.
For her part, earlier this year, on her MSNBC show, Cupp stated that she would no longer speak at CPAC, despite being listed in the program. She objected to the new CPAC policy of refusing gay groups such as GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans from sponsoring the conservative gathering.
“In Cupp’s version of conservative femininity,” writes Amanda Hess, “a woman need not even experience marriage, motherhood, and religious piety in order to promote these values as the most authentic way of living.” Clearly, Cupp is not a traditional conservative with traditional conservative views on marriage and sexuality. She thinks conservatives and Republicans should just move beyond homosexual issues and accept homosexuals and “gay marriage” as legitimate. On the other hand, Gingrich is a solid conservative, from social to economic to foreign policy issues.
By hiring Cupp, whose views are well-known, CNN is also trying to “redefine” the word “conservative.” She also calls herself a Republican, but identifies more completely with the term “Log Cabin Republican,” a reference to the pro-homosexual group. She has been quite open about this, from her perch as a commentator on Glenn Beck’s network.
If CNN wanted a female conservative with solid credentials on social issues, an excellent selection would have been Cathy Ruse of the Family Research Council. If youth alone was the criterion, Ryan Sorba, a young conservative who has traditional views on social issues like homosexuality, would also have been a good pick.
Sorba is best known for using his 2010 CPAC speech to rail against the convention for allowing a gay group to take part. Ruse was last seen calling for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because "the Girl Scouts decided to admit boys who dress as girls" and issued "a guidebook that tells girls to check with the leftist, George Soros-funded Media Matters before believing what they read in the news."
This is who Kincaid thinks would make wonderful spokespeople for the conservative movement.
Joseph Farah's Descent Into Depravity Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his Aug. 14 WorldNetDaily column:
This column is inspired by a commentary by Rush Limbaugh last week.
I’ve written columns like this frequently over the last 20 years, but Rush coined a phrase last week, probably without even realizing it, that says it all: “The descent into depravity.”
He didn’t actually string those words together, but he came close. So I’m going to do it for him today.
Rush used the word “depraved.” He also described the news item as an example of the way “the descent our culture is taking [us] toward the sewer.” All of this is very accurate.
But we should recognize it for what it is: “The descent into depravity.” Of course ugly, sinful, immoral and repugnant behavior has been going on since Genesis. But today, it’s normal. It’s not even news.
And that’s how a nation, a culture, a society descends into depravity.
Of course, Farah will never tell you about his own descent into depravity. That's because, like any good depraved person, he portrays his depravity as virtue.
For the past five years, Farah and his website have been engaged in the attempted personal destruction of Barack Obama by any means necessary. Farah doesn't care whether what he publishes about Obama is true -- he cares only that it takes down the president. All he has achieved thus far is turning his own website into a laughingstock that no sentient person believes, catering only to an extremely narrow audience of Obama-haters and conspiracy theorists.
Later this month, WND Books is releasing the new anti-Obama book from Aaron Klein, which purports to make a case for impeaching Obama. If it's anything like WND's previous attempt at such a book, it will be slipshod, ridiculously biased, and factually inaccurate.
And even if it's not, Klein's book will carry no weight in the marketplace because it is a product of a WND reporter that is published by WND -- in essence, a vanity publication.
That is the result of Farah's descent into depravity. But Farah will tell you that this is not only virtuous, it's patriotic. And he will tell you that he's the one person who's qualified to lead a "national day of prayer and repentance," all while acting like he has nothing to repent.
WND Sidesteps Question of Cruz's Eligibility To Be President Topic: WorldNetDaily
You'd think that with all it has written about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, WorldNetDaily would be able to make a declarative snap judgment about the eligibility of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. But it seems WND will punt on the question for now.
An unbylined Aug. 14 WND article highlights how CNN "suddenly is concerned about whether Republican Sen. Ted Cruz would qualify for the Oval Office." After noting that Cruz "was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father," WND adds:
Cruz himself says he qualifies as a natural-born citizen because he’s a citizen by birth.
But those opinions assume that the authors of the Constitution used the terms citizen and natural-born citizen interchangeably.
But rather than further examining the question of Cruz's eligibility, WND spends the rest of the lengthy article rehashing discredited claims about Obama's "eligibility" -- even though that's not what the story's about.
Is WND going to apply a different standard to Cruz's eligibility than it has to Obama's? It seems that way.
Noel Sheppard heartily approves of a Missouri rodeo clown mocking President Obama, using an Aug. 14 NewsBusters post to denounce criticism of the clown as a "phony scandal" and touting Rush Limbaugh's "marvelous" commentary on the subject, in which he said, "He's the president of the United States! They get made fun of! They get laughed at all the time!"
But wait -- wasn't Sheppard just a few short days ago saying that elected officials are "deserving of respect," which mocking from a rodeo clown probably doesn't qualify as? Yes, yes he did.
Apparently, in Sheppard's world only conservative politicians are deemed worthy of respect. The rest deserve the rodeo-clown treatment. Some people might call that ridiculous double standard rodeo-clown behavior.
WND Roots For Muslim Brotherhood to Take Out Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has normally despised the Muslim Brotherhood and regularlysought to portray President Obama as having some sort of sympathy toward or outright ties with it. But apparently the Muslim Brotherhood hates Obama almost as much as WND does, so WND is changing its tune.
In an email promotion for an Aug. 14 article, WND is positively giddy at the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood taking down Obama, saying, "Finally! There may be something good in connection with the Muslim Brotherhood after all."
The article itself, by Jerome Corsi citing shady self-proclaimed ex-terrorist Walid Shoebat, is not quite as giddy but still seems to push the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood taking out Obama as a good thing.
NEW ARTICLE -- CNS: Spending Money on Gays Is A Waste Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's effort to uncover supposedly wasteful spending has disproportionately focused on LGBT-related issues -- and, strangely, preventing cancer. Read more >>
WND's Unruh Misleads on Anti-Evolution Video Topic: WorldNetDaily
Surprisingly, Bob Unruh essentially concedes in an Aug. 10 WorldNetDaily article that that evangelist Ray Comfort misleadingly edited interviews with evolutionists in a new anti-evolution video. How so? By depicting Comfort's refusal to release unedited footage of the interviews unless some nebulous goal is reached:
“They are worried, and they’ve got a right to be,” commented Comfort.
“‘Evolution vs. God’ shows that there’s no evidence for Darwinian evolution – that it rests on nothing but blind faith,” he said. “So they are hoping to find some ‘silver bullet’ in what wasn’t used that will discredit the movie. They know that millions are going to end up seeing evolutionary scientists from USC and UCLA gasping like fish out of water, as they try to think of scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution.”
He responded: “American Atheists, Inc. Want to see all the interview footage? Let’s go on TV. Convince me with a good reason to, and I will release it.”
An honest filmmaker would have released the unedited interviews with no quesitons asked, so at least we now know where Comfort lies. If Comfort is so honest, why is he playing games?
But lest anyone think Unruh has suddenly developed enough of a conscience to devote himself to fair and balanced journalism -- trust us, he hasn't -- he threw in this:
Other scientists interviewed are Peter Nonacs of UCLA and Craig Stanford of USC.
Said Nonacs: “I am one of the evolutionary biologists interviewed by Ray Comfort for his new DVD. First, Ray is a charming fellow and I greatly enjoy interacting with him. I do not expect that my words will be edited out of context or that I’ll find myself somehow saying on camera that ‘All of evolutionary biology is a hoax perpetuated in order to justify atheism.’ In short, I expect that everything in the DVD will be an accurate reflection of my words.”
Unruh apparently copied that off a website promoting Comfort's film. But he won't tell that isn't the way Nonacs feels about it now. Nonacs writes in a comment on the American Atheists Facebook page:
Hey, it's me, Peter Nonacs, - one of the stars of Ray's movie although to my great disappointment, I get about 30 seconds of air time, total. But I want to defend Ray from all the abuse being poured on his head. Ray is smart, incredibly funny, unfailingly polite and civil in person. I take him at his word that he is sincere in his beliefs. Maybe. A few years back he actually interviewed me for well over an hour. It was a ton of fun with a lot of great back and forth between us. I think if Ray released that tape, plus the entirety of the interviews he did for this movie, it would actually make for a far better argument for his point of view than what he has done. Like I said, he is smart and a very sharp debater. It is therefore mind-boggling to me that he makes these God awful products instead (oops, there I go blaspheming again. It's off to hell for me, next to Hitler, after I die!). They are so slanted with such ridiculous questions and such clearly biased editing, that they have no chance of making "converts". Thus, I have come to form a new hypothesis. Ray Comfort is a cryptic evolutionary biologist, who's plan is to take down Creationism and ID from within. He will keep making more and more absurd movies that the evolution deniers will trot forth as their best evidence - hastening their ideological death spiral to irrelevance. So, whenever Ray asks, I'll be there to help him with this effort!
Unruh also fails to mention that Comfort himself has admitted he "selectively edited" the interviews in his film, which would seem to discredit him further. As PZ Myers, one of Comfort's interview subjects, points out:
Comfort came to me asking for the evidence for evolution. The way it went is that he would a) ask for evidence, b) I would give him an example (like the research on sticklebacks or bacteria), c) Comfort would raise an irrelevant objection (they’re still fish! They’re still bacteria!), and d) I would explain why his objection was invalid, and how his expectations of the nature of the evidence were wrong. Somehow, though, in the movie (d) always ended up on the cutting room floor, so that he could announce in all of his promotional materials and in the movie itself that I was unable to provide any evidence for evolution.
Unruh may have the occasional spasm of honest reporting, but he's not so honest as to tell the full truth. That's not what WND is paying him to do.
Newsmax, CNS Swallow Dubious Claim of Missile Theft Topic: Newsmax
The ConWeb is pouncing on a story seemingly designed to make the Obama administration look bad over the Benghazi attack:
A May 12 Newsmax article by Cathy Burke repeats how "Beltway lawyer Joe diGenova" said in a radio interview that "400 surface-to-air missiles were 'diverted to Libya' during the attack and fell into 'the hands of some very ugly people.'"
An Aug. 13 CNSNews.com article by Susan Jones echoed diGenova claim that "the real scandal in Benghazi is the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles" that could be "used to shoot down an airplane or blow up one of our embassies."
Both Newsmax and CNS merely repeated diGenova's claims uncritically. Newsmax followed upwith an Aug. 13 article by Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter that allowed former congressman Allen West to opine on the subject.
But there are good reasons to question diGenova's story. First, he and his wife, Victoria Toensing, are partisan Republican activists. Second, diGenova himself admitted during the radio interview he had no evidence to back up his claim and some of the evidence isn't "verifiable."