Podcast appearances and mentions of Alger Hiss

What obligations do colleges and universities have to protect students from anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? What obligations do they have to let students speak freely about issues they care about? David Cole just testified before Congress about that—he's the former National Legal Director of the ACLU, and The Nation's legal affairs correspondent.​ Also: Trump's partnership in Washington with his biggest donor, Elon Musk, is coming to an end. The richest man in the world, who made the biggest campaign contribution in history, is going home the clear loser in this affair. Historian David Nasaw comments.Next: In 1948, Alger Hiss, a prominent New Deal Democrat, was convicted of perjury for testifying that he had not been a Soviet spy. The conventional wisdom is that he was probably guilty. Now, Jeff Kisseloff says it's not hard to show that Hiss was innocent; the hard part is figuring out who framed him. Jeff's new book is “Rewriting Hisstory: A Fifty-Year Journey to Uncover the Truth About Alger Hiss” (originally recorded April 30, 2025).Plus: Your Minnesota Moment: In St. Francis, a small town north of Minneapolis, a high school got hit with a book banning policy. The Minnesota ACLU and the Teachers' Union both filed lawsuits; inspiring author Dave Eggers to host an event there. Students sat outside of the school and read from some of the banned books that included "The Kite Runner" by Afghan-American Khaled Hosseini – small town high school kids stand up to book burners.

Author Jeff Kisseloff's new book, "Rewriting HISStory," is a political history that looks to uncover the innocence of alleged Communist spy Alger Hiss. Kisseloff brings to light a wealth of original material, including 150,000 pages of mostly unredacted previously unreleased FBI files (which he sued the FBI to obtain) and other documents from government and library collections around the country.

McCarthyism, Whitaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, House Un-American Activities Committee, the Smith Act, the Hollywood 10, the Joint Anti-Fascist Committee, the Truman Loyalty Program, the Blacklist, book burning, and communism – all subjects of controversy during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s here in the United States. Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at the New York Times, has a fresh look at all this in his book, "Red Scare." Mr. Risen writes in his preface that his grandfather was a career FBI agent who joined the Bureau during World War II, and he recounted stories of implementing loyalty tests for the federal government in the late 1940s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

McCarthyism, Whitaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, House Un-American Activities Committee, the Smith Act, the Hollywood 10, the Joint Anti-Fascist Committee, the Truman Loyalty Program, the Blacklist, book burning, and communism – all subjects of controversy during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s here in the United States. Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at the New York Times, has a fresh look at all this in his book, "Red Scare." Mr. Risen writes in his preface that his grandfather was a career FBI agent who joined the Bureau during World War II, and he recounted stories of implementing loyalty tests for the federal government in the late 1940s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump is "the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s"—that's what Princeton's president Christopher Eisgruber said. Others say that what Trump is doing is worse. Beverly Gage comments – she wrote “G-Man,” the award-winning biography of J. Edgar Hoover.Also on this episode: In 1948, Alger Hiss, a prominent New Deal Democrat, was convicted of perjury for testifying that he had not been a Soviet spy. The conventional wisdom is that he was probably guilty. Now, Jeff Kisseloff says it's not hard to show that Hiss was innocent; the hard part is figuring out who framed him. Jeff's new book is “Rewriting Hisstory: A Fifty-Year Journey to Uncover the Truth About Alger Hiss.”Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Donald Trump is "the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s"—that's what Princeton's president Christopher Eisgruber said. Others say that what Trump is doing is worse. Beverly Gage comments – she wrote “G-Man,” the award-winning biography of J. Edgar Hoover.Also on this episode: In 1948, Alger Hiss, a prominent New Deal Democrat, was convicted of perjury for testifying that he had not been a Soviet spy. The conventional wisdom is that he was probably guilty. Now, Jeff Kisseloff says it's not hard to show that Hiss was innocent; the hard part is figuring out who framed him. Jeff's new book is “Rewriting Hisstory: A Fifty-Year Journey to Uncover the Truth About Alger Hiss.”Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode, Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Jack Fowler discuss DJT's America First Manifesto, contrast Obama administration, Mexico thinks DJT unserious, Greenland's status, facing China's Belt and Trade Initiative, meritocracy's comeback, de-DEIing the university, the irony of Biden and mental fitness, and the anniversary of the Alger Hiss conviction.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Seventy-five years ago, Whittaker Chambers accused highly respected U.S. government official Alger Hiss of being a Communist. Hiss denied the accusation. Who was telling the truth? In his latest podcast, Ray Notgrass examines the controversy, the court trial that resulted, and the impact that the controversy had on American politics.Homeschool curriculum and resources for all ages: https://notgrass.com/Supplemental videos, field trips, and other resources: https://homeschoolhistory.com/Encouragement for homeschool moms: https://charlenenotgrass.com/

In the late 1940s and early ‘50s America was caught up in a “red scare.” The nation was gripped by fears of Communism, communist spies, communist infiltration. One of those accused was State Department official Alger Hiss.accused of spying for the Soviet Union in the 1930s. Hiss ultimately spent prison time for perjury, not espionage. His son Tony recalls, in this 1999 interview, how his father's life was changed.

In this episode, we discuss Joseph McCarthy. Was he the crazed, reckless man the MSM made him out to be? Or was he a truthseeker who knew our government had been infiltrated?Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheFactHunter Website: thefacthunter.com Email: thefacthunter@mail.com Snail Mail: George Hobbs PO Box 109 Goldsboro, MD  21636Show Notes:Sarah McBride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_McBride Joseph McCarthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy Lavender Scare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Scare Lester C. Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_C._Hunt HENRY LUCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce Father of Mainstream Media: Skull and Bones Member, Henry Luce https://www.jewworldorder.org/father-of-mainstream-media-skull-and-bones-member-henry-luce/ Did the Jews murder Senator Joe McCarthy https://historyreviewed.com/index.php/did-the-jews-murder-senator-joe-mccarthy/ Dean Acheson Scroll & Key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Acheson Joseph McCarthy was Right – The American Communist Party Today https://www.citizensjournal.us/joseph-mccarthy-was-right-the-american-communist-party-today/ Joseph McCarthy “Enemies from Within” Speech Delivered in Wheeling, West Virginia (1950) https://minio.la.utexas.edu/webeditor-files/coretexts/pdf/195020mccarthy20enemies.pdf JOSEPH MCCARTHY LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMAN (1950) https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/joseph-mccarthy-letter-truman-1950/ Alger Hiss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss Karl Marx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Heinrich Marx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Marx Antony Blinken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Blinken Janet Yellen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Yellen Merrick Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland Deb Haaland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_Haaland Julie Su https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Su Alejandro Mayorkas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Mayorkas BLINKEN AND ‘BLINKERED': TWO OATH-OF-OFFICE STORIES EMBODY A DIVIDED AMERICA https://religiondispatches.org/blinken-and-blinkered-two-oath-of-office-stories-capture-a-divided-america/

Alex Newman is an award-winning international freelance journalist, author, researcher, educator and consultant. He is senior editor for The New American. He is co-author of Crimes of the Educators, author of Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes and author of, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. He is Founder of Liberty Sentinel.This program takes a deep dive as it looks at the timeline of the United Nations, the world organization whose beginnings go back to October 24, 1945. Alex believes that from the beginning, the U.N. was set up for nefarious purposes. At that time what you find is that the U.N. was dominated by communists, subversives and individuals that have no business being anywhere near global power. As Alex moves along the timeline you'll hear him discuss the following: Soviet agent Alger Hiss who was the first Secretary General of the U.N.John Foster Dulles, one of the key delegates to the founding of the U.N., who through his book War or Peace, admitted the U.N. goal was world government.The International Court of Justice.Planning documents like Agenda 21. The connection between the World Economic Forum/the World Health Organization and the U.N. How religion factors into U.N. history. The U.N. and internet control. How to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and much more.

Alex Newman is an award-winning international freelance journalist, author, researcher, educator and consultant. He is senior editor for The New American. He is co-author of Crimes of the Educators, author of Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes and author of, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. He is Founder of Liberty Sentinel.This program takes a deep dive as it looks at the timeline of the United Nations, the world organization whose beginnings go back to October 24, 1945. Alex believes that from the beginning, the U.N. was set up for nefarious purposes. At that time what you find is that the U.N. was dominated by communists, subversives and individuals that have no business being anywhere near global power. As Alex moves along the timeline you'll hear him discuss the following: Soviet agent Alger Hiss who was the first Secretary General of the U.N.John Foster Dulles, one of the key delegates to the founding of the U.N., who through his book War or Peace, admitted the U.N. goal was world government.The International Court of Justice.Planning documents like Agenda 21. The connection between the World Economic Forum/the World Health Organization and the U.N. How religion factors into U.N. history. The U.N. and internet control. How to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and much more.

Holly talks about the details of the typewriter evidence that was used in the Alger Hiss case. She and Tracy also talk the relationships among sources on Carlo Gesualdo's story. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alger Hiss worked in high-level roles in the U.S. government during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. And then he was accused of using his access to spy for the Soviets. Research: “Alger Hiss.” FBI. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/alger-hiss “A Byte Out of History, the Alger Hiss Story.” FBI. Jan. 25, 2013. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/a-byte-out-of-history-the-alger-hiss-story Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Alger Hiss". Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 Jul. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alger-Hiss Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Whittaker Chambers". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Jul. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Whittaker-Chambers Chambers, Whittaker. “The Ghosts on the Roof.” Time. 5, 1948. https://time.com/archive/6784924/the-ghosts-on-the-roof/ Mark, Eduard. “In ReAlger Hiss: A Final Verdict from the Archives of the KGB.” Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 11, no. 3, 2009, pp. 26–67. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26923052 Fox, John F. Jr. “In the Enemy's House: Venona and the Maturation of American Counterintelligence.” FBI.gov. Oct. 27, 2005. https://www.fbi.gov/history/history-publications-reports/in-the-enemys-house-venona-and-the-maturation-of-american-counterintelligence Hadley, David. “The Long Controversy Over Alger Hiss.” Teaching American History. Jan. 21, 2020. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/blog/the-long-controversy-over-alger-hiss/ “KGB interviews GRU agent and net controller name ALES 30 March 1945.” https://media.defense.gov/2021/Aug/01/2002818545/-1/-1/0/30MAR_KGB_INTERVIEWS_GRU_AGENT.PDF Rowe, Daniel, and Sarah Fagg, ed. “Alger Hiss and American Anti-communism.” New Histories. Vol. 3, Issue 5. https://newhistories.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/volumes/2011-12/volume-3/issue-5-crime-punishment/alger-hiss-and-american-anti-communism Sander, Gordon F. “Microfilm hidden in a pumpkin launched Richard Nixon's career 75 years ago.” New York Times.  Dec. 2, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/12/02/pumpkin-papers-richard-nixon/ “Secrets, Lies, and Atomic Spies: Alger Hiss.” NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_hiss.html “The Yalta Conference.” U.S. State Department, Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf#:~:text=At%20Yalta%2C%20Roosevelt%20and%20Churchill,of%20influence%20in%20Manchuria%20following See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How Two Brothers Waged A ‘Secret World War’ In The 1950s | (wbur.org)    The Dulles Brothers, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and the Fate of the Private Pre-War International Banking System – INTERNATIONALIST 360° (wordpress.com)    Did The Dulles Brothers Seal Our Fate? | (paulcraigroberts.org)    The Banana Wars: How The U.S. Plundered Central […] The post 1/3 *The Dulles Brothers Created the CIA Destroyed Central America and IRAN for USA Corporate Interests.  Africa was being Colonized and the Dulles Brothers were destroying Cental America, Cuba, Haiti all of them.  Banana Wars. appeared first on Psychopath In Your Life.

For this episode, host Andrew Keen sits down with James Kirchick, journalist and author of the New York Times bestseller Secret City: the Hidden History of Gay Washington. They discuss the historical exclusion of gay individuals within American democracy, with a particular emphasis on the challenges - from legal persecution to professional exclusion, and social stigmatization, Kirchick and Keen explore how political attitudes towards gay rights have evolved, intertwining with broader cultural and political shifts. Kirchick describes the gradual inclusion of homosexuals in the democratic process, highlighting key moments of setbacks and progress over the past century. The conversation explores significant events such as the Kinsey report in 1948, the Alger Hiss case, McCarthyism, and the political landscape during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The emergence of homosexuality as a national political issue, alongside movements like gay liberation and the AIDS crisis, had a profound impact on American politics and society. When America openly accepted homosexuals into its civic and cultural life, it marked a significant enhancement of its democracy. 

In this episode, Joe and Grettelyn get a preview of one of the upcoming talks at this year's Chesterton conference from speaker Joe Walsh, who will be looking at commonalities between G. K. Chesterton and Whittaker Chambers! To register for the conference, visit https://www.chesterton.org/43rd-annual-chesterton-conference/ today!

“What if in 1943 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his White House advisors had acted on an offer from high-ranking German officials that they were prepared to kidnap Adolf Hitler and all of his top cronies.  They would then turn Hitler over to the United States and sign an armistice ending the war with Germany. The German high officials wanted then to join with the United States to stop the Communist Soviet Union from advancing in Europe. They had a well-thought out plan as to which units they knew were loyal, what units they knew would actually move on the Wolf's Lair, Hitler's Prussian, and the East Prussian headquarters. FDR learned of this proposal from a man the Germans believed would be their most credible emissary:   George H. Earle III, a Main Line Philadelphia millionaire, war hero awarded the Navy Cross, Pennsylvania governor, Ambassador to Austria and Bulgaria, friend and supporter of Franklin Roosevelt, generous donor to humanitarian causes, colorful playboy, and spy.  Yet FDR did not act on the stunning offer, and the rest as they say, is History. The Soviets conquered part of Germany and all of Eastern Europe and closed it behind an iron curtain that would endure for over four decades. Here to tell this story is Chris Farrell, who for the last 25 years has been the Director of Investigations & Research at Judicial Watch and author of “Exiled Emissary: George H. Earle III”    and  Dr Shea Bradley Farrell, author of “Last Warning to the West”, the founder of Counterpoint Institute and who has written extensively about the agonies of Eastern Europe under Communism.  “This is not one of these books that examines an alternative history,” explains Chris. “Everything in the book is documented, for example, from the National archives, the Pennsylvania State Archives in Harrisburg, or the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Pennsylvania. Or from personal records from the Earle family.” Why this story matters today is not just that FDR did not act but why he didn't. As records have become public, we have learned that were many staunch supporters of the Soviet Union and its Marxist social experiment in both the FDR and Truman White Houses. Alger Hiss was FDR's key aide at Yalta.  “What Earle was saying was, “Look, the real threat is the Soviet Union. We may have been allied during the war for whatever reason you want to explain, but they're a civilizational threat."”  But many in the 1940s White House did not want to act against the Soviet Union. They supported it.  The Soviets then. China today. The United States has a long troubled history of “elite capture.”  Chris and Shea tell a compelling story. You can learn much about history from this episode. But it's how it reflects on today that's really chilling. What does John Kerry say when he's meeting with the Chinese?

This week on the Mark Levin show, the talking points of the Democrat party and the media claimed for years that the southern border was secure, but now they are telling us if the massive new border bill is not passed it will not be secure. Also, the land of Israel has always been important for Christians over the centuries, from Jerusalem to Nazareth to Bethlehem, and it continues to be important today. America is $300 trillion in debt, and providing $14 billion for munitions for Israel changes none of that. Terrorists and terrorist nations that surround Israel are executing a new crusade, and they seek to wipe out Judaism, Christianity, Muslims with whom they disagree, the West, and anyone or anything that stands in their way. Israel is on the frontlines of this war, shedding blood to protect our faiths and history, while the Biden regime is providing tens of billions to Iran and virtually every terrorist group surrounding Israel. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is not just a Marxist Obama ideologue, but is a traitor to the United States and may be the Alger Hiss of the modern era. The Democrats and the media are furious with a report from the special counsel about President Biden's classified documents because it exposes Biden as a feeble old man with dementia who should be removed under the 25th Amendment. Biden was unable to remember key details and basic facts and had entirely forgotten that he was even Vice President for 8 years. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A history podcast for people who don't think they like history, History on Trial will use the most scandalous and shocking trials of the past to tell the story of America. From the Salem Witch Trials to O.J. Simpson, trials have always revealed hidden truths about our society. History on Trial will dig into these cases, focusing on the real people behind the headlines, and the powerful cultural contexts that shaped the verdicts. We'll dive deep into the grimy underworld of sports betting with the 1919 Black Sox Scandal, investigate mid-century Soviet espionage through the cases of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, and explore the scandalous sex lives of Victorian preachers via the adultery trial of Henry Ward Beecher. Fans of true crime, legal dramas, and history alike will be captivated by the unbelievable true cases that played out in the courtrooms of history. Listen here or on the iHeartRadio app. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, Secretary of State Antony Blinken is not just a Marxist Obama ideologue, but is a traitor to the United States and may be the Alger Hiss of the modern era. Blinken is a special pleader for terrorists in the Middle East and the Islamonazi regime in Iran, who are on the precipice of having nuclear weapons and are putting Americans at risk. He is effectively arming up our enemies with tens of billions of dollars while working with surrounding Arab nations to destroy Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is a modern-day Winston Churchill standing up to Hamas and terror groups funded by Iran, and unfortunately also having to stand up to President Biden and Blinken, who are trying to sabotage Israel and prevent them from total victory. The American media is so corrupt that if they were around in WWII we would have lost to Germany and the Axis powers. Also, a high-level Iranian spy ring was busted in Washington D.C., which ran through the offices of Robert Malley – a boyhood friend of Antony Blinken. Iranian spies were able to infiltrate the Biden State Department under Antony Blinken and shape U.S. policy to favor Iran. This would explain why we haven't properly retaliated to Iran killing American soldiers and why we are giving Iran billions of dollars. Finally, Mark speaks with Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) about the 2024 election and the disastrous border bill being pushed through Congress that would enshrine Marxist Democrat open-border policies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

British-born author Nick Bunker, our guest this week, has written books on the Mayflower Pilgrims, the Revolutionary War, and a biography of Benjamin Franklin. Lately he has turned his attention to America and the world in 1950. His book is titled "In the Shadow of Fear." Nick Bunker, a graduate of King's College, Cambridge, and Columbia University, focuses on names like Joseph McCarthy, Harry Truman, Dean Acheson, Margaret Chase Smith, George Marshall, Robert Taft, Alger Hiss, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In addition, Bunker pays close attention to the Korean War. Make your donation at: c-span.org/donate Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

British-born author Nick Bunker, our guest this week, has written books on the Mayflower Pilgrims, the Revolutionary War, and a biography of Benjamin Franklin. Lately he has turned his attention to America and the world in 1950. His book is titled "In the Shadow of Fear." Nick Bunker, a graduate of King's College, Cambridge, and Columbia University, focuses on names like Joseph McCarthy, Harry Truman, Dean Acheson, Margaret Chase Smith, George Marshall, Robert Taft, Alger Hiss, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In addition, Bunker pays close attention to the Korean War. Make your donation at: c-span.org/donate Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comMoynihan is one-third of The Fifth Column — the sharp, hilarious podcast he does with Kmele Foster and Matt Welch. He was previously the cultural news editor for The Daily Beast, a senior editor at Reason, and a correspondent and managing editor of Vice.It's a fun summer chat with an old friend. We recorded the episode a few weeks ago, on July 24. For two clips — on the conspiracy theories of RFK Jr., and the deepening rift within the Israeli government — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: his Boston upbringing with a “union guy” father and being the first college grad in his family; on the agony of writing as a profession; on the “laziness” of many top writers; on flawless ones like Michael Lewis and John Updike; Moynihan's review of a new book on Orwell; why Animal Farm was passed over by publishers; Orwell's distrust of intellectuals and losing many friends on the left; his love of Englishness; wondering how he would react to mass migration and postmodernism; Kingsley Amis and his cohort being the original “lol alt-right”; Enoch Powell and his “Rivers of Blood”; the elections in Spain and the far-right party's floundering; immigration in Sweden; Brexit; violence against Venezuelan immigrants in Brazil and Colombia; why Islamism is barely discussed anymore; Trump and DeSantis on Social Security; the debate over sex changes for kids; the success of the gay rights movement through persuasion; Brendan Eich; the propaganda around Covid; what Moynihan calls the “the Mis/Disinformation Industrial Complex”; lab leak; Elon Musk; the AIDS denialism of Duesberg and Maggiore; Holocaust deniers; Marty Peretz; Kissinger; Vidal; Hitch of course; Oppenheimer and McCarthyism; Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs; Hollywood's double-standard when it comes to pro-communist films; “Angels in America”; the big increase in black deaths after BLM in 2020; amnesia over Afghanistan; and the first time I ever did poppers. Good times.Browse the Dishcast archive for another conversation you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Vivek Ramaswamy on his vision for America, Sohrab Ahmari on his new book Tyranny Inc., and Freddie deBoer on his new book How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement. Also, in the fall: Ian Buruma, David Brooks, Spencer Klavan, Leor Sapir, Martha Nussbaum, Pamela Paul and Matthew Crawford. A stellar roster! Please send any guest recs and pod dissent to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

On the May 30 edition of #TheWorldAccordingToBenStein podcast, Ben, Judah, and Peter roast Alger Hiss, a Communist infiltrator who reached the highest levels of the American government until he was brought down through the hard work and dedication of then-California Congressman Richard Nixon.  Then Ben picks the best speechwriter he's ever worked with. Finally, a lengthy conversation once again about how we are allowing our country to be destroyed from the inside out because public officials have gone soft on crime. All that plus viewer mail and a musical tribute to the hard-working men and women who still make this country possible.

In 1948 Whittaker Chambers shocked the nation when, while testifying before Congress, he gave the names of individuals he claimed were working within the United States government as Communist spies for the Soviet Union.  Among those named was Alger Hiss, Chamber's close friend and former Communist comrade.  The ensuing trial quickly divided the nation into competing narratives.  Who was lying and who was telling the truth?  Was Chambers insane or, perhaps, seeking to destroy Hiss due to some personal grievance?  Was this merely a pretext to the coming Communist “purges” under the McCarthy hearings that took place a few years later?  Or had Chambers alerted the nation to the fact there were Soviet spies deep within the government and the prevailing liberal elite of that era had failed completely to respond to the threat?   Sam Tanenhaus, American historian, biographer, and journalist joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to take a deep dive into the remarkable life of Whittaker Chambers, including how Chambers came to break with Communism, whether Hiss was truly guilty, the real threat of Communism of that era, what the Chambers/Hiss trial came to represent for the nation as a whole, Chamber's association with William F. Buckley and the burgeoning conservative movement, and his lasting impact on the Right.   About Sam Tanenhaus Sam Tanenhaus is the US Writer at Large for Prospect and the editor of both The New York Times Book Review and the Week in Review section of the Times.  From 1999 to 2004 he was a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, where he wrote often on politics.  His work has also appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, and many other publications.  Tanenhaus's book, Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and was a finalist for both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize.  His books also include The Death of Conservatism and a soon-to-be-released biography of William F. Buckley Jr. and is the US Writer at Large for Prospect.  

In today's politics, it is not uncommon to see Members of Congress in shouting matches among each other and even toward witnesses. But what historical precedent could explain how we arrived at this point in time of polarized American politics? In this episode, learn more about the highly televised HUAC hearings of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers and how the confrontational saga paved the way for this day and age of bitter polarization.Support the showNEW! Visit georgewashingtoninstitute.org for the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $10 membership level or higher!SUBSCRIBE to our e-mail list for the latest news and updates from Friends & Fellow Citizens!NOTE: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All guests on interview episodes are solely those of the interviewees and may or may not reflect the views of the host or Friends & Fellow Citizens.

In this episode, Matt and Sam go deep into the life and times of Whittaker Chambers, most famous for his role in the "trial of the century"—the trial of Alger Hiss for perjury after Chambers accused Hiss of being a Communist spy during his years working in the federal government, especially the State Department. The two figures, once friends, came to symbolize a clash that was bigger than themselves, and prefigured the turn American politics would take at the onset of the Cold War. Chambers would become a hero of the nascent postwar conservative movement, with his status as an ex-Communist—one of many who would congregate around National Review in the mid-to-late 1950s—bringing his moral credibility to the right as one who had seen the other side and lived to tell his tale. Before all that, though, Chambers's life was like something out of a novel: a difficult family life, early brilliance at Columbia University, literary achievement in leftwing publications, and years "underground" engaging in espionage for the Soviet Union against the United States. "Out of my weakness and folly (but also out of my strength), I committed the characteristic crimes of my century," writes  Chambers in his 1952 memoir/jeremiad Witness.  Your hosts break it all down, assess his crimes and contributions, and explore one of the most consequential American lives of the twentieth century.  Sources:Sam Tanenhaus, Whittaker Chambers: A Biography (1997)Whittaker Chambers, Witness (1952)Whittaker Chambers, Cold Friday (1964)Whittaker Chambers, "Big Sister is Watching You," National Review, December 28, 1957The Whittaker Chambers Reader: His Complete National ReviewWritings, 1957-1959 (2014)William F. Buckley, Jr., editor, Odyssey of a Friend: Whittaker Chambers Letters to William F. Buckley, Jr. (1969)L. Brent Bozell, Jr. and William F. Buckley, Jr., McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning (1954)Murray Kempton, Part of Our Time: Some Ruins and Monuments of the Thirties (1956)Landon R.Y. Storrs, The Second Red Scare and the Unmaking of the New Deal Left (2013)Richard H. Crossman, editor, The God that Failed: A Confession (1949)Lionel Trilling, The Middle of the Journey (1947)Matthew Richer, "The Cry Against Ninevah: A Centennial Tribute to Whittaker Chambers," Modern Age, Summer 2001Christopher Hitchens, "A Regular Bull," London Review of Books, July 1997Christopher Hitchens and Martin Amis, "No Laughing Matter" (YouTube, 2007)Jess Bravin, "Whittaker Chambers Award Draws Criticism—From His Family," Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2019Isaac Deutscher, "The Ex-Communist's Conscience,"  The Reporter, 1950. John Patrick Diggins, Up From Communism: Conservative odysseys in American intellectual history, (1975)Daniel Aaron, Writers on the Left, (1961)Larry Ceplair, Anti-Communism in Twentieth-Century America: A Critical History, (2011) ...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes! 

By the time Mel Allen broadcast Game four of the 1949 world series at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn on October 8th, the world was in turmoil. The Yankees would win that day and take the series four games to one, but people's attention was turned toward world politics. The Communist People's Republic of China was formed on October 1st and recognized by the USSR the next day. The Democratic Republic of East Germany was formed on October 7th. On October 14th, Ten Communist Party USA leaders were sentenced to jail time. Two days later the Greek Civil war ended with a Communist surrender, and on October 24th the cornerstone of the United Nations Headquarters was laid in New York. As 1949's holiday season approached, India adopted a constitution, while the labor government was defeated in Australian Federal elections. A growing red scare was now deeply embedded in the media. Alger Hiss' second perjury trial began in November, while Mahatma Gandhi's assassins were executed, and Chinese communist troops continued their march to Taiwan. Members of the media had been claiming there were potential communist cells in the entertainment industry for more than two years.

This week we welcome Dale Jenkins, Author of DIPLOMATS AND ADMIRALS: From Failed Negotiations and Tragic Misjudgments to Powerful Leaders and Historic Deeds, the Untold Story of the U.S. Navy's Victories at Coral sea and Midway.  Diplomats and Admirals argues that the war in the Pacific was the result of internal divisions in both the United States and Japan, and possible duplicity within the Roosevelt administration.  After continued Japanese expansion in the Pacific in 1941 and the total oil embargo imposed by Dean Acheson, the threat of war escalated.  Japanese Prime Minister Konoe realized war with the United States would be disastrous for Japan.  He made strenuous attempts to arrange a summit meeting with President Roosevelt but was continually rebuffed by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and his pro-China advisors Stanley Hornbeck and Alger Hiss.  Roosevelt's War Council, oblivious to the power of the Japanese Navy, believed the oil embargo would force Japan to withdraw from southern Indo-China.  An agreement with Japan was within reach at the end of November 1941, but Chiang Kai-Shek and Madame Chiang exerted powerful lobbying pressure to prevent an agreement – they wanted the United States in the war to aid China.  In response, Hull delivered a demanding diplomatic note, known forever as the Hull Note of November 26, which the Japanese viewed as an ultimatum.  The result was Pearl Harbor.  Diplomats and Admirals' penetrating historical descriptions and insights before and during WWII and across continents and oceans, culminates at the Battle of Midway, where U.S. Navy carrier pilots snatched victory from defeat in the last possible moments– a decisive victory that stopped further Japanese expansion and turned the momentum of the Pacific War from Japan to the United States.  We discuss the parallels between that time, and our current geo-political climate, specifically Russia and China.  Dale analyzes why if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.  The greatest generation is front and center in this week's interview.For more information about Dale Jenkins and his book Diplomats and Admirals go to https://daleajenkins.comPlease join our efforts in raising money to provide multi-cancer screening for at risk veterans.  We have set up a fundraiser with Fund the First, all proceeds will go to the  HunterSeven Foundation to purchase Galleri® Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test for veterans identified as high risk through their Immediate Needs Program.  To make a donation or to find out more about our fundraiser go to https://fundthefirst.com/campaign/multi-cancer-screening-kits-for-veterans-3eiblv

NOW, TRUMP MUST BE PROSECUTED FOR ESPIONAGE A BLOCK (1:30) The New York Times' blockbuster and a stunning Trump leak of a letter from the National Archives makes it inevitable (2:15) There is no prosecutorial discretion here: if you've stolen MORE THAN 300 CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS THEY HAVE TO PROSECUTE YOU (2:43) And if some are the highest level of classification, you must be prosecuted FOR ESPIONAGE (3:00) The Times also implied there's video of people actually mishandling these documents (3:41) DOJ also isn't sure Trump isn't hiding MORE classified docs at Mar-a-Lago (5:08) None of the crimes mentioned on the search warrant are affected even if Trump somehow DID declassify the papers he stole (5:27) You also don't want to be Christina Bobb right now (6:47) Trump's motion to have a 'Special Master' review everything seized is described as 'Alice In Wonderland' (7:22) and incredibly it contains Trump boasting of how he got a threat relayed to Attorney General Garland (8:37) Judge Reinhart also seems to be leaning against unsealing the search warrant affidavit - in part for Trump's physical safety (9:55) Trump flunky Kash Patel is blaming the Government Services Administration because they haven't gotten around to blaming the moving company yet (10:05) Early Tuesday somebody connected to Trump LEAKED A NATIONAL ARCHIVES LETTER TO TRUMP'S LAWYER and ex-journalist John Solomon posted it (10:30) Archivist Debra Wall has detailed all of Trump's efforts to keep the stolen documents through the first five months of this year (11:07) Wall says Trump tried to claim executive privilege over them! The Biden White House finally agreed to waive any executive privilege (11:49) But Solomon (and presumably Trump) think the mere mention of Biden in the letter will let them paint this as Biden politically attacking Trump (12:09) without realizing that the letter confirms Trump DELIBERATELY held on to the documents and cannot claim some kind of mistake (12:39) And Wall even notes some documents were "Special Access Program materials" - bureaucratic speak of ultra-secret Black Ops programs. Trump is in twice as much trouble as he was before Solomon posted (15:20) They won't listen, but this would be a good time for his supporters to bail out on Trump because it's all indictments from here on in. B BLOCK (19:05) Every Dog Has Its Day: Roxy (20:33) Postscripts To The News: there's a Trump Electoral Fraud scandal too. The Your-Kraken-Is-Showing crowd seems to have illegally disseminated election data to people like friends of Sean Hannity (21:59) Why did The New York Times run a Trump Op-Ed by Rich Lowry when (23:13) it could've just reprinted his self-gratifying assessment of Sarah Palin's wink from 2008? (24:47) Sports: Tom Brady's back. The Masked Singer? Refilled his consecrated ground? (25:17) Bryce Harper's minor league rehab is...SPONSORED? (27:40) Trump, Tim Michels and Russia Ron Johnson compete for Worst Persons honors, with Ron insisting he was only involved in the coup for just "seconds." C BLOCK (32:00) My career stories - Things I Promised Not To Tell - focuses in this episode on the most talented (and most self-destructive) person I've ever worked with. He was a New York and Los Angeles radio news anchor and TV news reporter named Will Spens. He was a genius, but his ability to do what others would not try, eventually destroyed him.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Översiktsserien fortsätter. Det kommer att handla om arvet efter FDR, oro om en ny depression, splittrade demokrater, Trumans överraskande omval 1948, statens lojalitetsprogram, fallen Alger Hiss och Rosenbergs och McCarthyism.    Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Ge den gärna betyg på iTunes! Följ podden på Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret) eller Instagram (@stjarnbaneret) Kontakt: stjarnbaneret@gmail.com

Our Season 7 story opens with a look at the conventional wisdom most of America, and the world holds on Watergate. It is the story of the heroic  Special Prosecutors who investigated the heinous crimes of Watergate. The story of a Washington Press Corp determined not to let the sly , crooked , Richard Nixon get away with running his, as Dan Rather called it, "crime syndicate" from the White House. It is the story of the heroic Democrats in Congress who continued to push for more and more information in order to protect the country from a President determined to undermine our constitutional democracy and trample over the American Criminal Justice System. It is the story of those brave, unselfish, upstanding, righteous Republicans who finally said enough. It was nothing less than saving our democracy itself and stopping fascism from reigning over our mighty and free land. I don't know about you, but I ain't never bought that line of happy Horse manure!!But I also never had anything but a feeling that "something was not right in Denmark". I had studied the career of Richard Nixon most of my life. What I had found was if you really looked at it almost none of the accusations, other than those of Watergate, ever stood up. He had in fact exposed a real communist spy in Alger Hiss. He had defeated Helen  Cahagan Douglas for the U.S. Senate  in a nasty race where most of the nastiness had been provoked by her not him. He had had a special fund to help with legitimate expenses related to his political career but he had been able to account for every dime spent from the fund, something the 1952 Democratic Nominee for President, Adlai Stevenson, who also had a similar fund  could not do for himself. The 1960 election for President had been arguably stolen from Richard Nixon and Nixon had had his taxes audited by the IRS and his airplane and phone lines bugged by the FBI during the subsequent Kennedy and Johnson years. It just seemed that every time you really looked at it, except for Watergate, Richard Nixon was actually not at all what he was constantly being presented to the public as having been.  So you just always had this feeling that maybe Richard Nixon's claim that he would one day be vindicated, yet again, would prove true.  But like most Americans, while sympathetic, I guess I kind of doubted that it could actually be possible. Until I read three riveting books by a lawyer, former Nixon staffer, and a man whose own credibility is unquestioned. That man's name was Geoff Shepard, and starting with this episode we are going to do a deep dive into documents he has unearthed over the past nearly two decades.  I think what you will see us lay out is an absolutely shocking and overwhelming story of alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct.And it will change everything you thought you knew about Richard Nixon. *** If you would like to see the documents they are available at ShepardonWatergate.com Link to the Geoff Shepard Book Launch event on You Tubehttps://youtu.be/LZre5OZ8IOsSupport My WorkIf you love the show, the easiest way to show your support is by leaving us a positive rating with a review. You can also tell your family and friends about " Randal Wallace Presents : Nixon and Watergate " tooThe Lowcountry Gullah PodcastTheculture, history and traditions podcast where Gullah Geechee culture lives!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

This episode is sponsored by Wren. Signup at wren.co/shermer and Wren will plant 10 trees in your name. Start a monthly subscription to fund climate solutions. Shermer and Kirchick discuss: archives and secret sources of secret histories • the cause of homophobia, and how and why homosexuality was thought of as a “contagious sexual aberrancy” • why there is no lesbian history of Washington • J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson and gay mythmaking • FDR and Sumner Welles • why at the height of the Cold War, it was safer to be a Communist than a homosexual • Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss • the McCarthy hearings and how the Lavender Menace became inextricably linked with the Red Menace • astronomer Franklin Kameny and the Mattachine Society • JFK and his tolerance of homosexuality • Richard Nixon's notorious homophobia • Ronald Reagan's conflicting attitudes toward homosexuality • George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and real progress in acceptance of homosexuality • the trans movement and its homophobic consequences. James Kirchick has written about human rights, politics, and culture from around the world. A columnist for Tablet magazine, a writer at large for Air Mail, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, he is the author of The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. Kirchick's work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, the New York Review of Books, and the Times Literary Supplement. A graduate of Yale with degrees in history and political science, he resides in Washington, DC. This episode is also sponsored by Wondrium. 

As Ben and Noel continue their conversation with novelist and art historian David Adams Cleveland, the group finds themselves going far beyond the world of Alger Hiss. In the second part of this two-part series, the guys learn more about David's award-winning work as an art historian, the ways in which history, research and fiction converge -- and a little about the oft-ignored effects of history on geopolitics. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Alger Hiss was a mover and shaker in the political sphere. Highly educated and deeply connected, Hiss worked as a lawyer involved in everything from the Justice Department to the United Nations. Until, that is, he was accused of being a spy -- a prime character in a vast conspiracy stretching from DC to the Soviet Union. In the first part of this two-part series, Ben and Noel join special guest, novelist and art historian David Adams Cleveland, to learn more about how these events informed David's newest novel, God of Deception. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeopardy! recaps from the week of May 2nd, 2022. We celebrate Mattea's streak, good wagering strategy, and the endless permutations of Benedict Cumberbatch. Kyle gives a deep dive on Alger Hiss, too. Find us on Facebook (Potent Podables) and Twitter (@potentpodables1). Check out our Patreon (patreon.com/potentpodables). Email us at potentpodablescast@gmail.com. Continue to support social justice movements in your community and our country. www.communityjusticeexchange.org www.blacklivesmatter.com https://www.gofundme.com/c/act/stop-aapi-hate www.rescue.org 

Whittaker Chambers This Podcast, the second to last, is the longest one.  The Hiss-Chambers Case did not die.  Many new facts were discovered, the majority of them harmful to Hiss, starting in the 1970s.  The Freedom of Information Act led the US government (after a lawsuit) to produce about 40,000 pages of paper, mostly from the FBI.  Hiss made the files of his defense counsel available to researchers.  One wonders if he knew what was in there, some of it was so damaging to him.  Most damaging in these and other files is powerful evidence that Hiss and his wife knew that the office typewriter they had had in the late 1930s was a Woodstock and that they had given it to The Catlett Kids, but they both denied such knowledge to the FBI, the Grand Jury (under oath), and even to their own ‘A List' attorneys, William Marbury and Edward McLean.  Other sources of information that opened late were the papers of Alger Hiss's brother Donald; a recollection of a fellow convict who spoke with Hiss in prison; the observations of a psychologist who testified for Hiss at the second trial (not Dr. Binger); the memoir of a document expert whom Chester Lane hired to help Hiss's Forgery by Typewriter argument; and even the memories of a female Bucks County, Pennsylvania, novelist who bumped into Chambers and The Ware Group during a brief residence in Washington in 1934.  Finally, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, several security agencies of former Communist dictatorships have briefly opened their files, all of them damaging to Hiss.  No wonder this second to last Podcast is the longest one.   FURTHER RESEARCH    The FOIA Documents are best summarized in Weinstein at 300-14 (“The Woodstock Cover-Up” — a coverup by the Hisses, not the FBI), 399-435 (“Rumors and Whispers:  The Pursuit of Evidence”), 625-30 (“The Motion for a New Trial”), 632-34 (“The ‘Faked' or ‘Substituted' Woodstock: Hover and the FBI”), and 641-45 (“The Double Agent:  Horace Schmahl, Mystery Man”). Other post-trials evidence is recounted in Gary Wills' “Lead Time:  A Journalist's Education” at 61-62 (Doubleday 1983); Elinor Langer, “Josephine Herbst” at 151-58, 268-76 (Northeastern Univ. Press 1984); and Donald B. Doud,” Witness to Forgery:  Memoir of a Forensic Document Examiner” at 34-66 (Orchard Knoll Publishers 2009).  The best summaries of the documents from ‘behind the Iron Curtain' are the chapter titled “Alger Hiss:Case Closed” in John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, & Alexander Vassiliev, “Spies:  The Rise & Fall of the KGB in America” at 1-31 (Yale University Press 2009); and Eduard Mark, “In Re Alger Hiss:  A Final Verdict from the Archives of the KGB,” 1 Journal of Cold War Studies at 26 (2009).   Hiss's briefs and some supporting documents in his last run at the courts (in the 1970s, claiming prosecutorial misconduct) are reproduced in Edith Tiger (Ed.), “In Re Alger Hiss” (two volumes) (Farrar Straus Giroux 1979) (Chambers' handwritten account of his homosexual activities, which he gave to the FBI, is in Volume I at 258-66.). For my skeptical reaction to some of Hiss's claims, see pages 221-28 of my paper “How Alger Hiss Was Framed: The Latest Theory,” available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3868165.   Questions:  Is there now reasonable doubt that Hiss was guilty of the offenses charged, and of a good deal more?  Or am I missing something?  Certainly, if Hiss is in fact innocent, he is one of the most wronged persons in our history!     If The Prosecution in Hiss trials did not play fair, should any tears be shed for Hiss if he was still up to his neck in spying for the Soviet Union and setting the stage for Joe McCarthy?  What motive would a female Bucks County novelist have to lie and place Chambers and Hiss together in The Ware Group in Washington in the mid-30s?  Isn't she as unlikely to be taking orders from J. Edgar Hoover as Chambers' best friend Professor Meyer Schapiro, a Jewish socialist art history professor at Columbia?  In light of the fact that all the typewriter experts Hiss's counsel hired reached the same conclusion as the FBI expert Feehan, is it likely that Hiss knew he was lying all the years he was claiming Forgery by Typewriter?  Or might he have forgotten and convinced himself that he was actually innocent?  Have you never known anyone who had such favorable delusions about his or her bad conduct long ago?   Consider all the people who have to be lying, all the experts who have to be wrong,  and all the documents that have to be forged and planted in dozens of different places in different continents over several decades if Hiss is innocent.  How likely is that?

  Several people have told me that, of my 38 episodes, this is their favorite.  See if you agree.   It is all about the question Hiss could never answer:  how, if Hiss is innocent, did the 64 Typed Spy Documents get typed on his home typewriter.  You may recall that Hiss first told The Grand Jury that Chambers broke into his house in 1938 and typed them on it himself when no one was looking.  That didn't work.  Second, Hiss told the jury at the second trial that Hiss gave the Typewriter to the Catlett Kids in late 1937; they put it in the back room where they had their non-stop dance party; then Chambers found it there and typed up The Typed Spy Documents himself on it as the conga line snaked past.  That didn't convince, either.  Third — and this is the subject of this Podcast — in a Motion for a New Trial on Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence, Hiss' new lawyer speculated that Chambers in 1948 had made a fake typewriter, which typed just like The Hiss Home Typewriter, and had typed up The Spy Documents on it; then Chambers found where the real Hiss Typewriter was (in the nightwatchman's home, you remember), stole it and planted his fake there, and waited for someone to find the fake and for everyone to assume it was the real Hiss Home Typewriter.  Quite a frame-up, if true.  But did that really happen?  Is it even plausible?  Podcast #35 explores this theory, which Hiss stuck to till his dying day (with numerous variations as each old one failed).   FURTHER RESEARCH   The best dissection of The Forgery by Typewriter Theory is Chapter 2 (titled “Chambers”) in “Ex-Communist Witnesses:Four Studies in Fact Finding” by Professor Herbert L. Packer of Stanford University Law School (Stanford University Press 1962) at 21-51.  Others are Cornell/Georgetown/Minnesota Law School Professor Irving Younger's article “Was Alger Hiss Guilty?” in Commentary Magazine's August 1975 issue, available at https://www.commentary.org/articles/irving-younger/was-alger-hiss-guilty-2/; and the Appendix to professor Weinstein's book, titled “‘Forgery by Typewriter':  The Pursuit of Conspiracy, 1948-97,” at pages 624-30, 632-34, 645-47.  The version of Alistair Cooke's book (“A Generation on Trial:U.S.A. v. Alger Hiss”) that was published in 1952 has a few new pages at the end, 347-54, describing Hiss's Motion for a New Trial and the Court hearing about it.  Judge Goddard presided, and Cooke notes (at 348) that the audience included “leisured and unidentified old ladies who appeared at all Hiss hearings with the ritual fatalism of the annual pilgrims to Valentino's grave.”  Cooke writes (at 348) that “several excellent lawyers were dumbfounded by the claims that the defense now put forward.”  After describing Judge Goddard's dismissal of those claims, Cooke ends his book with the following words.  “Four years had passed since the names of Hiss and Chambers shook the nation.  Now there was another Presidential campaign, and the Democrats were in full fling at their convention in Chicago.  Judge Goddard's word, perhaps the last, about Hiss was lucky to earn a few lines at the bottom of the inside pages of newspapers.  In most it earned none.  Hiss had passed into shame and into history.”   Here is my list of the people who, Hiss defenders have speculated over the decades, masterminded or participated in the framing of Hiss (in most cases involving forgery by typewriter): Whittaker and Esther Chambers, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Ambassador William C. Bullitt, Jr., Richard and Pat Nixon, the Democratic financier and Presidential advisor Bernard Baruch, President Truman's Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, the Dulles Brothers, supporters of the Chinese anti-communist dictator Chaing Kai-Shek, a Nazi sympathizer who owned a typewriter store in New York City, the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps, and a private detective named Horace Schmahl.   If you are interested in the broader question of why people believe highly implausible stories, I recommend Michael Shermer's book “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” (St. Martin's Griffin 2002); and a delightful article by the Brandeis University Professor Jacob Cohen, “Will We Never Be Free of the Kennedy Assassination?,” published in the December 2013 issue of Commentary Magazine and available at https://www.commentary.org/articles/jacob-cohen/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/.   Questions:  Here are two questions I have asked myself for years but never answered satisfactorily.  Can you help me?   (1) In his Motion for a New Trial, Hiss claimed that Chambers did the forgery all by himself, or with the help of Communist friends.  This seems plainly ridiculous.  Chambers had neither the time, the tools, nor the talents to forge a typewriter and, by 1948, no Communist friends to help him.  My question:  why was it only years later that Hiss claimed that Hoover and the FBI had committed the forgery?  The FBI was obviously the only organization in the US that even arguably had the necessary time, tools, and talents.  What prevented Hiss from aiming, from the start, at such an obvious target?   (2). Hiss publicized his Forgery by Typewriter theories for decades, and his supporters have carried the torch in the decades after his death.  They are articulate people, they have occasionally had generous funding, and they know lots people in the nation's media who would love another story of an innocent gentleman framed as a Commie the early Cold War years.  But if you Google “Famous Conspiracy Theories” or “Top 25 Conspiracy Theories of All Time,” you will not find Hiss's Forgery by Typewriter Theory.  Why?  Why has Hiss's conspiracy theory not achieved the popularity of the theories about the assassinations of JFK and RFK, or of the alleged landings at Roswell and the alleged non-landings on the Moon?  Is his theory too implausible or too complicated for a large audience, and/or is Hiss too cold a fish to be sympathetic?  

Alger Hiss is taken to prison   Alger Hiss's conviction — technically for perjury, but effectively for treason — was a major event.  It was a disaster for The Establishment, especially liberal Democrats, and vindication for Republicans and populist Democrats.  The 18 month labyrinth of HUAC hearings, depositions in Hiss's libel suit, grand jury proceedings, and two criminal trials were the long, long overture to the so-called McCarthy Era.  Senator McCarthy, in fact, gave his famous “I have a list . . .” speech just weeks after Hiss's conviction.  This Podcast gives an overview of the many and complex reactions to the guilty verdict.  Everyone, it seems, accepted the factual correctness of the verdict.  But many liberals could not help making up excuses for Hiss, or damning Chambers for being fat and melodramatic.  And many conservatives and populists could not help painting all liberals and Harvard graduates with the black pitch of Hiss's treason.  Most interesting and encouraging to me, a significant number of liberals and Democrats were sufficiently mature and morally alive to engage in genuine introspection and self-criticism, to admit they had ‘blown it big time' when it came to Soviet traitors in our midst, and to resolve to fashion a liberal anti-communism that was just as vigorous as what Republican conservatives had been offering for decades.     FURTHER RESEARCH    The McCarthy Era, although sparked by this Case, is an oceanic subject beyond the scope of these Podcasts.  If you want to read about it, among the best conservative books are George H. Nash's “The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945” (Basic Books 1976), esp. 84-130; and Richard Gid Powers' “Not Without Honor:  The History of American Anticommunism” (Free Press 1995), esp. 191-272.See also Professor Harvey Klehr's essay “Setting the Record Straight on Joe McCarthy,” https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/setting-record-joe-mccarthy-straight-harvey-klehr/.   Among the far more numerous, totally anti-McCarthy books are David Caute's “The Great Fear:The Anti-Communist Purge Under Truman and Eisenhower” (Touchstone 1979), esp. 56-62; Fred J. Cook's “The Nightmare Decade:The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy” (Random House 1971); Victor Navasky's “Naming Names” (Viking 1980) (especially the early pages); I.F. Stone's “The Truman Era: 1945-52” (Little Brown 1953) (Stone was himself a secret agent of the Soviet Union); and James A Weschler's “The Age of Suspicion” (Random House 1953).  I must note that it was a stroke of genius for the minimizers of Communist treason to name the era after anti-Communism's most irresponsible big name.  This is as if racists had succeeded in labeling the civil rights movement The Al Sharpton Movement.     Concerning the impact of the Hiss verdict in particular, Dean Acheson, in his autobiography “Present at the Creation:  My Years at the State Department” (Norton 1987), titles his pertinent chapter (at 354) “The Attack of the Primitives Begins.”  Alistair Cooke (at 340) also saw nothing good coming from Hiss's conviction.  A more mature view, at page 267 of Walter Goodman's “The Committee:The Extraordinary Career of the House Committee on Un-American Activities” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux 1968), is that the Hiss-Chambers Case “whip[ped] up a storm which did not last long but left ruins in its wake.”  Other more realistic analyses of the Case's impact on America are in Weinstein at 529-47 (chapter titled “Cold War Iconography I:  Alger Hiss as Myth and Symbol”); the best single essay on this Case in my opinion, Leslie Fiedler's “Hiss, Chambers, and the Age of Innocence” at 3-24 of his “An End to Innocence:  Essays on Culture and Politics” (Beacon Press 1955) and Diana Trilling's essay “A Memorandum on the Hiss Case,” first published in The Partisan Review of May-June 1950 and re-published at 27-48 of Patrick J. Swan's anthology of essays on this Case, “Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and the Schism in the American Soul” (ISI Books 2003).  The latter two essays I highly recommend.   Questions:  If you had been adult when Hiss was convicted, what would have been your reaction to his conviction?  ‘Justice at long last,' ‘a miscarriage of justice,' ‘guilty but a fair trial was impossible,' ‘technically guilty but with an excuse,' or something else?  Would your reaction have been purely emotional/political/tribal, or would you have cited one or more facts to support your reaction?  Would you have been totally certain that your reaction was the right one, or would you have harbored some doubts?

Hede Hassing, a key witness in the 2nd trial The second trial: new Judge (an elderly Republican), a new jury (seven women!), a new lawyer for Hiss (Boston's distinguished, quiet Claude Cross), a new strategy by each side, and a lot more witnesses.  The next three Podcasts bring you three witnesses who did not testify at the first trial, but did at the second.     One journalist wrote that the minor characters in this Case contained the raw material for a shelf of unwritten novels.  You've already met Julian Wadleigh.  Now meet Hede Massing, a Viennese actress, thrice married and twice divorced, and secret Communist operative (like her first two husbands) in four countries.  She testifies that she saw Alger Hiss (and even had a memorable chat with him) in Washington's Soviet underground in the mid-1930s.  The FBI document expert Feehan gave expert corroboration for Chamber's accusations.  If you believe Massing, she gives Chambers eyewitness corroboration.  But she may have been weakened by Claude Cross's cross-examination, which left her “visibly flustered.”(Alistair Cooke wrote at 292.)     FURTHER RESEARCH:    Massing's autobiography, “This Deception,” published by Duell, Sloan and Pearce in New York in 1951, is available on Amazon and eBay.  She describes her encounter with Hiss at pages 173-75.     Massing led a life of adventure, and paid the price.  Much of her secret life was incredibly boring, establishing new identities in place after place and then waiting weeks or months for a real assignment.  Her earlier testimony to The Grand Jury also makes clear the painful psychological struggles facing ex-Communist spies in the West.  There is the obvious guilt about having betrayed your country to serve another country that turned out to be worse than you dreamed possible.  There is also damage done to others.  Massing told The Grand Jury how she recruited a State Department economist to spy for the Soviet Union.  In 1948, the economist had just skipped over to the other side of The Iron Curtain and spent the rest of his life there.  Massing, in front of The Grand Jury, suddenly broke down crying and asked for a glass of water and a recess.  Later, she explained that she felt personally responsible for the economist's ruined life.  (I think she was being too hard on herself.  What he did was his responsibility.) She also begged the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep her identity and testimony secret, for two reasons.  First, she and her husband had found jobs but had not disclosed their past crimes, and she was terrified that they would be exposed and become unemployable.  Second — and this is something several former Soviet operatives corroborated — she said that when you have lived for years under false names, sleeping by day and working by night, moving from country to country and city to city at the KGB's whim, “it takes all your gumption and guts to try to live an average life as I am trying to do.”  (Grand Jury Transcript at 3697-98.). Being a secret agent, in reality, is not like the James Bond movies.   Questions:  Judge Kaufman excluded Massing's testimony at the first trial.  Judge Goddard allowed it at the second.  Was one Judge clearly right and the other clearly wrong?  Do you think Massing helped The Prosecution on the whole, or was she too damaged on cross-examination?  Does the sudden flight of the State Department economist lend credibility to her story?     As you hear more about how the second trial differed from the first, ask yourself what caused the different verdict at the latter.  There are many possible explanations.  The Cold War had gotten substantially colder by the second trial.  Hiss chose a new lawyer, whom few would say was the equal of Lloyd Paul Stryker.  Prosecutor Murphy was trying the case for a second time and did much better than at the first.  There were the three new witnesses (and more testimony allowed by the repeat witnesses).  The Judge was a Republican appointee.  There were more women on the second jury.  Take your pick.

In Podcast 26, Alger Hiss takes the stand!  In the courtroom corridor, Hiss said: “I have been waiting for this a long time.”  (Smith at 383.). Lloyd Paul Stryker walked him through his golden resume, emphasizing all the times he had been trusted with secrets and remained loyal (as far as anyone knew).  Hiss denied every bad act of which Chambers had accused him and ended by telling the jury that he was not guilty.   If you were cross-examining Hiss, you might be tempted, given his charm and rhetorical skills, to ask him just a few questions and then let him go.  You could prove his many changes of story and his rococo accounts of his financial dealings with “Crosley” by reading Hiss's HUAC testimony in to the record and introducing into evidence all the business records darkening or disproving what he said about the Ford with the sassy little trunk, the $400 loan, and the rug.  But Nixon, the only man who had cross-examined Hiss, warned Murphy not to do this.  Nixon got word to Murphy ‘Hiss makes a very good first impression, and you can't let that be the impression he leaves the jury with.  You've got to get down in the pit and wrestle with him.'  See who you think won the wrestling match.     FURTHER RESEARCH:   John Chabot Smith's pro-Hiss version of the trial covers Hiss's testimony at pages 379-85.  He describes Hiss as calm and careful.  Smith observes that Hiss's precision on the witness stand contrasted sharply with his hesitant and ever-changing testimony to HUAC.  Hiss said that since HUAC he'd had more time to remember what happened, but Smith worries that a hostile listener might think Hiss was now emitting carefully memorized lies and sticking to them for dear life.  Smith (at 383) describes Murphy's cross-examination as calm and methodical.  Professor Weinstein (at 475) describes Murphy's cross-examination as rapid-moving and unfocused (which may have been intentional, to throw Hiss off guard) and Hiss as remaining “almost unflappable.”  Weinstein writes (at 480) that Hiss left the witness stand “a bit battered,” but that he, like Chambers, “had held firmly to his basic story.”  Alistair Cooke writes (at 196) that Hiss “walked over to the witness stand . . . with the same nimble grace and compact charm” with which he had presided over the founding of the UN.  Cooke (at 200) describes Prosecutor Murphy, during Hiss's direct testimony, as “mentally tapping his teeth” and (at 208) describes Hiss under cross-examination as “superlative.”  Cooke (at 213) describes Murphy as ever more frustrated and husky as the cross-examination wound on.  Hiss's calm, graceful deportment, according to Cooke (at 209, 211), encouraged his admirers and infuriated his detractors.  Cooke wrote (at 196) that if Hiss was innocent, his “serenity could be only the deep well of security in a character of great strength and purity.  In a guilty man, . . . his detachment would be pathological in the extreme.”   Questions:  Are you one of Hiss's encouraged admirers or infuriated detractors?  Do you think he could have done any better on direct examination?  Would it have hurt him to describe a few times in his life when he had done wrong, or had just shown imperfect judgment?  Might such an admission have made him more human and perhaps likable?  Do you think Hiss survived Prosecutor Murphy's cross-examination without a scratch?  Or did he take one or two torpedoes?  Or did Murphy reduce Hiss to a smoking ruin?  

  Each side in this Case had a male homosexual secret.  Remember that we're in 1949, when conservatives thought that male homosexuality was a sin and a crime and enlightened liberals thought that gay men were tragic mistakes of nature, mentally ill, women trapped in men's bodies, but fortunately there was talk therapy, shock treatment and, if all else fails, lobotomies.  (Homosexual men were subjected to lobotomies until recently in Communist Cuba.)   Chambers, during his years in the Communist underground, had had gay sex with men he met in public places.  And Hiss's stepson (Mrs. Hiss's son by her first marriage) was gay and had been discharged from the Navy in 1945 on psychological grounds, which was a polite way of eliminating gay sailors.  The precise dimensions of each side's gay secret, how it was concealed, and how it was hinted at publicly and used covertly, is the subject of this Podcast.   Further Research:   Robert Stripling, HUAC's Chief Investigator and Nixon's partner in the first phase of the Case, said that it was whispered around the hearing room from Day One that Chambers was “a queer” — Stripling's word, not mine.  He also said that, whenever an ex-Communist testified, within hours rumors began that he or she was an alcoholic or drug addict, had been to see a psychiatrist, or was a “sex pervert” — again, Stripling's words, not mine.   The liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote discreetly that the “anti-Chambers whispering campaign was one of the most repellent of modern history.”  George H. Nash, “The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945” at 100 (Basic Books 1976).  Alistair Cooke used equal delicacy when, in his inventory of ‘secret explanations' of what happened between Hiss and Chambers, he wrote “one or two other theories . . . went the rounds of Washington and New York [that] . . . so mercilessly intrude into other people's lives that the incompleteness of this report appears a small price to pay for giving everybody so slandered the benefit of a large doubt.  The reader who is most prurient to know about such theories will be the one most apt to hit on them.”  Cooke at 334.  Dr. Weinstein, in his definitive book on this Case, deals with Chambers' homosexual acts at 112-13, 129-30, with Hiss's stepson's gayness at 424-25, and with Hiss's use of Chambers secret gay life to ‘explain' his mentally ill lies about Hiss at 405-08 and 639-41 (section 4, titled “Chambers as Paranoid:  The Revenge Motif” in an appendix titled “Six Conspiracies in Search of an Author, 1948-1996”).    I have never seen any indication that the two sides in this Case formally agreed not to smear each other with their gay secrets.  Nor have I ever had any reason to believe that Alger Hiss was in the slightest degree gay.   Questions: If you were one of Hiss's lawyers and the prejudices of 1949 were still widespread today, would your ethics deter you from smearing Chambers as gay (and therefore mentally ill or evil)?  Don't you have an ethical obligation to defend your client vigorously??  If you were Prosecutor Murphy, and if you feared testimony by Hiss's stepson, would you use your gay smear on the same grounds?  On the whole, which side do you condemn more for its use of the other side's ‘gay secret'?   Here is a poem, titled “Lothrop, Montana” that Whittaker Chambers wrote. It was published (under Chambers' real name) in The Nation magazine — to this day, the media headquarters of the Hiss side — on June 30, 1926, at page 726:   The cottonwoods, the boy-trees, Imberle — the clean, green, central bodies Standing apart, freely, freely, but trammeled; With their branches inter-resting — for support, Never for caressing, except the wind blow. And yet, leaning so fearfully into one another, The leaves so pensile, so tremulously hung, as they lean toward one another; Unable to strain farther into one another And be apart; Held back where in the earth their secret roots Wrap one about another, interstruggle and knot; the vital filaments Writhing in struggle; heavy, fibrous, underearthen life, From which the sap mounts filling those trembling leaves Of the boy-trees, the cottonwoods.   Is it reading too much between the lines to see in there a description of wrestling (Chambers' college sport) by two young gay men, ending as each one's ‘sap mounts' within their ‘secret roots' and ‘trembling leaves'?

Photo: http://www.spartacus-educational.com Now comes the witness who, in my opinion, dooms Alger Hiss.  He gives expert testimony supporting Chambers' claim that the typed spy documents were passed to him by Alger Hiss after Mrs. Hiss typed them on the Hiss home typewriter.  Lloyd Paul Stryker did not ask this witness a single question on cross-examination.  Listen to this Podcast to learn who was the witness and how he formed his expert opinion.  After the witness left the stand, all ears waited to hear Hiss explain how dozens of documents, obviously prepared for espionage, got typed on his home typewriter but he is still innocent. FURTHER RESEARCH: As one scholar put it, you wouldn't want to hang a man based  on the testimony of Whittaker Chambers and nothing more, but how could you disbelieve Chambers plus 64 pages of typewritten spy documents that had been typed on the Hiss home typewriter?  Herbert L. Packer, Ex-Communist Witnesses:  Four Studies in Fact Finding (Stanford Univ. Press 1962) at 22. The next witness is Raymond Feehan, sometimes called Ramos Feehan — a great multi-cultural name, perhaps only possible in 1949 in New York City.  Mr. Feehan was an FBI employee and a member of the profession of The Examination of Questioned Documents.  I have been unable to find a photo of him or any other information about him — which makes him the perfect dispassionate expert.  Alistair Cooke describes him as “a vigorous, dark-haired F.B.I. expert, . . .strictly a laboratory man . . . [who] appeared quite untouched by the emotions of the case . . . . [and had] all the basking pride of a travel lecturer much in demand.”  Alistair Cooke, A Generation on Trial (1952) at 168-69. Mr. Feehan opined that the typed spy documents and another bunch of documents, which everyone agreed had been typed on the Hiss home typewriter, had been typed on the same typewriter.  This opinion, wrote Alistair Cooke (at 168), “provoked quick intakes of breath from many casual spectators.” It is often misstated that this Case turned on a typewriter.  That's not true.  Mr. Feehan formed his opinion before the typewriter that everyone agreed was the Hiss home typewriter had been found.  Mr. Feehan based his opinion instead on a comparison of two sets of documents — the typed spy documents and the so-called Hiss Standards, which everyone had agreed had been typed on the Hiss home typewriter.  It is as if you proved that the fingerprints on a certain glass were my fingerprints by comparing them not to my fingers, but to a fingerprints (say, in the files of the FBI) that everyone agreed were my fingerprints.  The Prosecution's evidence, the evidence that convicted Alger Hiss, would have been exactly the same if no typewriter had ever been found. Concurring in Mr. Feehan's opinion was the founder of the profession of The Examination of Questioned Documents, one Ordway Hilton.  Ordway Hilton, Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents (Revised Edition) (Elsevier Science Publishing Co. 1982) at  224-25, 232. Questions:  How will Hiss explain how the typed spy documents got typed on his home typewriter?  His Explanation #1, to the Grand Jury, that Chambers snuck into the Hiss house and typed them up himself when no one was looking, didn't work.  He'll need a damned good Explanation #2, won't he?  You'll have to wait for Podcast #26 to hear it.  In the meantime, can you think of a way that Chambers (or someone with more time and resources) could make a ‘fake' typewriter and produce typewritten documents that looked exactly like documents that had been typed on the real Hiss home typewriter?  For that, you'll need to wait for Podcast #35.

Federal Courthouse, NY, 1938 This is a short podcast to acquaint you with the actors about to come on stage in the drama of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers. They are the government Prosecutor Thomas Murphy, Hiss's principal defense lawyer Lloyd Paul Stryker, Judge Samuel Kaufman, and the jury.   Additional Research   Murphy, a 6' 4” muscular giant of a man with an enormous walrus mustache, tried to come across as the quiet, somewhat plodding, but totally competent and honest government attorney just doing his job.  He knew he could not match Hiss's barrister Lloyd Paul Stryker, the greatest criminal defense lawyer in the country and a dramatic actor who could resemble a July 4 fireworks display if he wanted to.  Also, prosecutors' excessive drama can create sympathy for defendants.  In later years, Murphy was briefly Police Commissioner of New York City (appointed by a reform Mayor) and for decades afterwards was a judge, appointed by President Truman, in the court where the Hiss trials occurred — the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.  A lawyer/friend who practiced before him told me that Murphy was a very quiet, laid back, passive trial judge and that these traits reflected his inner total self-confidence and sense of his own competence.  My friend said that no matter which side of a case you were on you were always happy when you got Murphy as trial judge. He would let you put on your case as you wished and wouldn't be interrupting your choreography to preen before the jury, comment on the evidence, or audition for higher office   Lloyd Paul Stryker was a magnificent performer, a real barn-burner.  He might be out of place in today's cool culture.  To him, his client was all things good and the other side was pure evil.  It was that simple.  He tended to ‘swing for the bleachers,' ignoring details and endlessly pounding away at one or two simple points in Shakespearean English.  He had a one man office, employing very young lawyers for a few years and then letting them go (with the benefit of having worked for a grand master).  Among the books he wrote (in his spare time!) are laudatory biographies of our first impeached President, Andrew Johnson, and the famous 18th-19th century liberal British barrister Thomas Erskine, and two legal treatises — all available on Amazon.  By the time of this trial, he was approaching old age.  He had made a lot of money but I think he had spent most of it.   Little is known about the judge at the first trial, Samuel Kaufman.  He must have been good to become a judge in the prestigious Southern District, but he left no mark and was thought by some to be a hack from the Manhattan Democratic Party's ‘machine' in Tammany Hall, which was still quite powerful in the 1940s.  He was so small physically that, when he leaned back all the way in his swivel chair up on the bench, he sometimes disappeared from view.   About the jury, the important thing is that, judging from their occupations, none of them had been to graduate school and perhaps none of them had been to college.  They were the kind of people who can't afford to live in Manhattan any more.  This trial took them into an unfamiliar world, of conceptual policy making and political ideology.   Questions:  Do you think Murphy and Stryker were well suited for the roles in which fate cast them?  If you were one of them, how would you use the other's character traits to your advantage?  If you were Murphy or Stryker, how would you take the jury into the foreign (to them) world of the State Department and espionage for the Soviet Union in a way that made your side look good and the other side look bad?  How would you make your man, Hiss or Chambers, seem to someone on the jury as just an honest ordinary person like me?    

Pic: Library of Congress   Alger Hiss is going on trial for perjury.  This Podcast is a survey, at 23,000 feet, of the possible arguments for The Prosecution and for The Hiss Defense.  Of each side's possible arguments, which are strong and which are weak?  This may be of special interest to real trial lawyers, or to the inner Perry Mason who lurks within each of us.   If you were The Prosecution, what would you emphasize to the jury? What are Chambers' strengths as a witness? What are his weaknesses? You also have all the documents Chambers produced, of course.  Do you have anything else — any other witnesses you would call?  When you cross-examine Hiss, is there anything you would like him to admit to?   Suppose you were The Hiss Defense and you decided to mount a fighting defense (not resting on the presumption of innocence that is the right of every criminal defendant).  Would you concentrate on attacking Chambers (who is a target-rich environment)?  Or would you emphasize building up Hiss' sterling past acts and glowing character references?  Can you give Chambers a plausible motive for lying about Hiss?  Can you explain Chambers' possession of documents by Hiss and his wife, obviously prepared for espionage in 1938, that Chambers produced in 1948?  The Grand Jury didn't buy Hiss's Exculpatory Theory #1.  What is your Exculpatory Theory #2?      Further Research:   This Podcast is about the arguments for The Prosecution, and the arguments for The Hiss Defense, in the upcoming trial of Alger Hiss for perjury.     Suppose you were The Prosecution.  Two crucial points to bear in mind: first, you must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Hiss lied when he denied passing government documents to Chambers in 1937 and 1938.  The jury must be left with no doubt, based in reason, that Hiss did that.  Also, something called The Federal Perjury Rule says that the testimony of one witness — Chambers, obviously — is not enough.  The Prosecution must have two witnesses, or one witness plus independent corroboration.  Assuming Chambers is your only witness, what is your independent corroboration?  How do you make Chambers credible, overcoming his strangeness, his being a confessed traitor, his possibly disreputable ratting out of his best friend, and his past denials under oath that any spying took place?  Is there some way you can make Hiss look worse than Chambers?  How would you prove that the handwritten documents were in Hiss's handwriting and that the typed documents were typed on the Hiss home typewriter?   There is almost no record of what The Prosecution was thinking about these matters. Much about the FBI's factual investigations, of which there are extensive (and sometimes hilarious) records, is described in a much later Podcast, #37, about what did not come out at the trials.   Suppose you were The Hiss Defense? You need do absolutely nothing — The Prosecution has the burden of proof and Hiss is innocent until proven guilty.  But suppose you want to mount a fighting defense. How can you weaken The Prosecution's Case?  Other than Chambers' weaknesses that were just described, would you dredge up his past strange behavior and try to make him seem insane, or mentally ill, or at least not believable BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?  Would you introduce evidence that Chambers was a homosexual?  (Remember this is 1948, not today.). How do you explain Chambers' possession in 1948 of documents, obviously prepared for spying, in Hiss's handwriting and typed on the Hiss home typewriter?  Hiss's Exculpatory Theory #1 didn't work before The Grand Jury.  What's your Theory #2?  Might Chambers be concealing a real Soviet spy in the State Department, someone who had access to the papers in Alger's office? Would you, like The Prosecution, search for the Hiss home typewriter?   The limited history of the internal strategic deliberations of The Hiss Defense is in Marbury's above-cited 1981 law review article beginning at page 85, in Smith's book at 272-90, and in Weinstein's book at 399-424.  It's fascinating reading for any lawyer who has ever planned or carried out strategy in a complicated high-profile case in which both sides have great strengths and great weaknesses.  One fact that makes the thinking of Hiss's counsel relatively available is that they were in different cities.  In the 1940s, long distance telephone calls were expensive and conference calls were a minor nightmare to arrange.  So, many opinions that would normally be spoken over coffee were, in Hiss's case, committed to paper.

Picture: Library of Congress   With this Podcast, we leave Washington and the political boxing ring and move to New York City and the courts.  There's still drama and tension, but no more pumpkin patches on dark and frigid nights, no more rescues of Congressmen from the high seas.  The process is more deliberate and the consequences are greater.  Starting now, Hiss and Chambers are each looking at being the defendant in a criminal trial and going to prison — punishments that no newspaper or Congressional committee can inflict.   Both men and their wives testify to a Grand Jury.  Chambers has to explain his recent denial to this same Grand Jury that any espionage was committed.  See if you accept his explanation for the 180 degree change in his testimony.  Nixon refuses to turn over the Pumpkin Papers to the Grand Jury, and they threaten him with prison!  Nixon says, “Go ahead, make my day” and a compromise is agreed to.  An FBI expert testifies that the typed spy documents that Chambers had produced were typed on the same typewriter as some letters that the FBI had obtained and that were definitely typed on the Hisses' family typewriter.  That means that the spy documents were typed on the Hiss family typewriter.  Hiss tries to explain how, if he wasn't a spy, 65 pages of documents, obviously prepared for spying, got typed on his home typewriter; and how, if he got Chambers/Crosley out of his life by 1936, Chambers has all this paper from Hiss (and don't forget the four handwritten notes) dated 1938.  See if you accept his explanation.  In the last hours of its life, the Grand Jury votes to indict Hiss for perjury.  Chambers and Mrs. Hiss are not indicted.  Alger Hiss loses another round, but he is far from defeated.       REFERENCES for further research and QUESTIONS   Episode 16:  The Grand Jury proceedings (and related hallway fights and shouting matches between Nixon, the FBI, the Justice Department, and Hiss) are discussed in Weinstein at 293-324, Hiss's memoir at 190-98, and in Chambers' ‘Witness' at 723-27, 761-64, and 780-84.     The only comprehensive review of the Grand Jury transcript was written by me (pardon my immodesty) and is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743890802121878.   If you would like a copy, send me an e-mail at john_berresford@comcast.net.   Grand Jury transcripts are kept secret for good reasons (explained briefly in the Podcast).  What got this Grand Jury transcript published was a precedent-setting lawsuit by the American Historical Association in which I played a small part.  AHA convinced the court that the historical significance of the event overcame the usual rule of secrecy.  In addition, all the principals were dead and many of their family members and friends supported publication.  The transcript is a (to me) fascinating glimpse into the thought processes of members of the Grand Jury and the government attorneys.  Chambers, for his earlier denial of any espionage, is roasted, fried, broiled, and fricasseed.  But, in the end, they accept his explanation.  Then, slowly, they refocus their anger on Hiss as the evidence against him accumulates and their patience with his clever wording wears out.  Hiss's Exculpatory Theory #1 — that Chambers broke into the Hiss home and typed up the spy documents himself when no one was looking and then hid them and even denied their existence under oath for ten years — finally snaps the endurance of everyone else in the room.     Questions:Do you accept Chambers' explanation for his recent perjury to the Grand Jury?  Do you accept Hiss's Exculpatory Theory #1?(He had two more in his back pocket, which he used in later years.). What do you think Nixon was trying to accomplish by bringing the rolls of Pumpkin Paper film into the Grand Jury room and holding them up in the air, but refusing to hand them over?  Was he maybe hoping to get arrested and be on every front page again?  If you had been on the Grand Jury, would you have voted to indict Hiss?  Mrs. Hiss (the alleged typist)?  Chambers?  All of them?        

Certainly, this Case was painful for Chambers — bringing him close to prison for perjury, ending the quiet and lucrative life he had enjoyed for years and costing him the only decent and decently paying job he had ever had. All the same, Chambers loved melodrama, and can you imagine any more satisfying melodrama than, on a dark and freezing night, leading two government investigators to a pumpkin vine behind your farmhouse and presenting them with five rolls of camera film containing proof of espionage and treason by the man who personifies the governing class of the country?   Further Research:   The dramatic, and sometimes almost comic, events of the first week of December 1948 are recounted in 191-207 and 287-93 of Weinstein's “Perjury,” still the definitive history of this Case. The memoirs of the major participants tell what happened, each somewhat differently from all the others: Bert Andrews' “A Tragedy of History” at 174-91, Chambers' “Witness” at 751-60, Nixon's “Six Crises” at 46-56 and his “RN” at 67-69, and Stripling's “The Red Plot Against America” at 141-51. The most fascinating discrepancy in the accounts concerns the auto trip that Nixon, Stripling, Bert Andrews and the stenographer Rose Purdy took from Washington to Chambers' Maryland farm on the afternoon of December 1 to find out ‘what the hell' had caused Hiss's lawsuit against Chambers to blow up. Chambers, at 751 of Witness, says that Stripling came to see him — strongly implying that Stripling made the tip alone. Nixon adds himself to the trip. (“Six Crises” at 47, “RN” at 67.) Bert Andrews adds himself as the third member of the trip (at 175). Stripling mentions only himself and Nixon (at 143-44). Why would Chambers want to give the impression that only Stripling came to see him? Why would Chambers want to leave Nixon out of the scene? I don't see how that would help him or his side. I doubt he would have forgotten about all the others.   If you go to YouTube and search for “Pumpkin Papers,” you will find a group of film clips, starting with Nixon's and Stripling's press conference and including excerpts from the prior HUAC hearings and later films taken on the courthouse steps during Hiss's trials. You can find other newsreels (which were shown in movie theaters and were the only form of moving image news before TV) about this case by searching on YouTube for “Alger Hiss” or “Whittaker Chambers.” The same search requests, made on CSPAN's web page, will yield more newsreels, lengthy films of the August 25 hearing, as well as many interviews and much commentary on this Case. I suspect that this Case, and Chambers in particular, were favorites of Brian Lamb.  Questions: Who do you think is the most likely leaker of Chambers' first bombshell to the Washington Post? Personally, I have no idea; no evidence, no rumors, not even a theory. Do you feel sorry for Pat (“Here we go again!”) Nixon? Do you sympathize with Nixon's rage at Chambers for not telling him, during the HUAC hearings, that he had proof that Hiss was not only a Communist, but a spy? Can you think of one or more reasons Chambers held back that fact (if it's a fact)? Chambers gave several reasons, which he gave to the Grand Jury. For them, you will have to listen to the next Podcast.  

 Pic: Library of Congress In Podcast 11, Nixon and Stripling pull off another tactical masterstroke.  They bring Hiss and Chambers together, to the surprise of both of them, in a hotel room in New York City.  Despite the locale, it's a formal hearing of Nixon's HUAC Subcommittee and there is a transcript (not to mention half a dozen memoirs).  Nixon asks Hiss, once and for all, if Chambers is the man he knew as George Crosley 10-15 years before.  What happened next has been called “bizarre and even incredible” and “a bit like a Henry James story, . . . full of subtleties and ambiguities.”  Hiss and Stripling were both there and, although they agreed on very little, each in his memoir used the exact same phrase to describe what happened — “something out of a dream.” Further Research: Episode 11:  The descriptions of the scene in Suite 1400 of the Commodore Hotel in New York City in the principals' memoirs are Chambers at 599-615 (at 603 “I felt what any humane man must feel when, pursuing an end he is convinced is right, finds himself the instrument of another man's disaster”), Hiss at 81-99 (at 99, “I resented the Committee's callous and ruthless procedures.  . . .  [T]he Committee and I were now at war.”), Nixon (Six Crises at 31-37, (RN at 61-63 (at 61), “I do not think that I have ever seen one man look at another with more hatred in his eyes than did Alger Hiss when he looked at Whittaker Chambers.”), Stripling at 126-32 (at 128, when Chambers entered the hotel sitting room where Hiss was, “Hiss did not turn around, did not change his expression.  I suppose I expected him to leap up, wheel around, and demand why this man — whom he had testified he did not know — had made these astounding charges against him.”).   See also Weinstein at 45-49 and  Alistair Cooke (at 73-84) describing (at 74) the scene as one that “began circumspectly enough and ended in a naked and desperate scramble for reputation.” Hiss brought along a friend, Mr. Charles Dollard, President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York.  Chambers writes (Witness at 603) that Dollard “hovers at the edge of the ensuing scene like the ‘first attendant, friend to the Duke' in a Shakespeare play.  Most of the time he  lurked in one corner of the room . . . with a curiously fixed smile on his face, which Hiss's loftier jibes turned incandescent with amusement.  . . .  I am not alone in supposing that this by-play was intended to convey the sense that these two beings were native to another atmosphere, were merely condescending, a little impatiently, to the summons of the earthlings in the room.”   Dollard later told Hiss's attorneys that “Alger behaved very badly.”  (Weinstein at 49 (footnote).) Questions:  Do you think, as I do, that when Hiss asked to speak with Chambers' dentist, he was just trying to abort the hearing, to close down the scene because he had no idea what to do — ‘get me the hell out of here,' ‘beam me up, Scottie!'  Do you sympathize with Chambers, who wrote that “I felt somewhat like a broken-mouthed sheep whose jaws have been pried open and are being inspected by wary buyers at an auction”?  (Chambers at 606.)       

Alger Hiss, like Chambers, gives secret testimony to Nixon's HUAC Subcommittee.  He is outraged that they are thinking of trusting Chambers, whom Hiss labels a Communist and a traitor (Hiss pre-channeling Senator McCarthy).  When confronted with Chambers' detailed knowledge of his domestic life 10-15 years ago, Hiss drops his claim that he never knew Chambers.  Oh, now it's all coming back to me, . . .  There was a man whom I knew back then, a self-styled freelance journalist who went by the name George Crosley.  He was disheveled, had shockingly bad teeth, and seemed sometimes to live in a fantasy world of dramatic escapades.  He became our subtenant, living under the same roof with us for a while, and stiffed us for the rent.  Maybe Chambers and Crosley are the same man.  Does this new story, which Hiss stuck to till the day he died, sound believable to you?  Or is he just coming up with a more complicated lie to defeat Chambers and the truth? Further Research Episode 9:  Hiss's secret testimony starts at HUAC at 935; the George Crosley recollection starts at 948-49, gets into depth at 955, and continues off and on until 970.  (Congressional hearings frequently hop from one topic to another as individual Representatives arrive, chime in, think of new lines of questioning, and leave the room to attend to other business.)  Hiss's recollections of his secret testimony, and of Crosley in general, are in his memoir “In the Court of Public Opinion” at 15-32 and in his late-in-life autobiography, “Recollections of a Life” (1988) at 207-08.  Chambers' analysis of Hiss's secret testimony is at “Witness” at 580-81 and 593.  See also Weinstein's Perjury at 39-44.  Nixon's recollections are in “Six Crises” at 23-29 and “RN” at 58-60.  There is a wonderful essay on this Case by the professor and literary critic Leslie Fiedler, “Hiss, Chambers, and the Age of Innocence,” in his book “An End to Innocence” (1952).  In it, at 9, Fiedler describes Hiss here as “uncertainly feeling his way into the situation, cautiously finding out at each point how much he will have to admit to escape entrapment.” Questions:   How does Hiss's new “George Crosley” story sound to you?  Obviously a fabrication, or plausible but we need to learn more, or has ‘the ring of truth'; to it?  How would you learn more?  Ask members of the Nye Committee staff if they remembered a man named George Crosley (evidently poor and with memorably bad teeth) hanging around the Committee's offices?  Ask the Hisses' household servants and social friends if they remembered a shabby looking man with bad teeth named George Crosley socializing with the Hisses back then?  Did Hiss ever mention to a deadbeat pest he'd finally gotten out of his life?  Look for magazine articles published by “George Crosley” in the mid-1930s?  Find pictures of Chambers in those years, show them to all the above-mentioned people, and ask them if the remember this man?