Podcasts about army mccarthy

This Day in Legal History: “Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?”On June 9, 1954, one of the most pivotal moments in American legal and political history unfolded during the Army–McCarthy hearings. The hearings were part of a broader investigation into allegations that Senator Joseph McCarthy and his staff had pressured the U.S. Army for preferential treatment of a former aide. By this time, McCarthy had become infamous for his aggressive campaign against alleged communists in government, using Senate hearings as a stage for accusations often lacking in evidence. His tactics had created a culture of fear and censorship across multiple sectors of American life.The dramatic turning point came when Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy after the senator attempted to smear a young attorney from Welch's law firm. With millions watching the nationally televised hearing, Welch famously asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” The moment drew applause and signaled a critical shift in public sentiment. It crystallized growing discomfort with McCarthy's bullying methods and marked the beginning of his political downfall.The legal significance of this day lies not in a court decision but in the public rejection of demagoguery and the defense of due process and professional ethics. Welch's rebuke helped reassert norms of fairness in legislative proceedings and served as a precedent for reining in congressional overreach. Within months, McCarthy was censured by the Senate, and his influence waned. June 9, 1954, thus stands as a symbolic restoration of institutional decency amid the legal theater of Cold War America.Getty Images has launched a major copyright lawsuit against Stability AI in the UK, accusing the company of using millions of its images without permission to train its AI system, Stable Diffusion. The case, now underway in London's High Court, challenges whether such data use falls within fair use or infringes intellectual property rights. Getty insists the lawsuit is not an attack on AI itself, but a defense of copyright protections, arguing that AI can thrive alongside creators if proper licensing is respected. Stability AI denies any wrongdoing, framing the dispute as a broader debate about innovation and freedom of expression.The legal battle is unfolding amid a global wave of lawsuits over AI training data, as creative industries express concern about the unauthorized use of their work. Getty is also pursuing a parallel case in the United States. Lawyers for Stability AI argue the suit could endanger the entire generative AI industry, but Getty counters that respecting copyright is key to AI's future. The outcome of this case could reshape how copyright law is applied to AI in the UK and potentially influence government policy.One legal element of note is UK copyright's application to machine learning, particularly regarding the "scraping" of protected content. This is significant because the UK lacks a settled precedent on whether using copyrighted data to train AI systems constitutes infringement, especially in the absence of express licensing. This case could establish that precedent.Getty argues its landmark UK copyright case does not threaten AI | ReutersDamian Williams, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has left Paul Weiss just months after joining the firm to move to Jenner & Block. His departure comes as Paul Weiss faces scrutiny for striking a controversial deal with the Trump administration in March, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services in exchange for rescinding an executive order targeting the firm. Jenner & Block, in contrast, opposed the same Trump-era executive order in court and recently secured a permanent ruling against it.Williams will now co-chair Jenner's litigation and investigations practice. During his time as U.S. Attorney, he led major prosecutions including those of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and Senator Bob Menendez. In a statement, Williams praised Jenner's fearless advocacy and strategic counsel. Jenner did not mention its legal fight against Trump or Paul Weiss's agreement in its announcement.Paul Weiss has seen several other high-profile departures in recent months, including five partners who left to start a new firm and the head of its pro bono practice, who left to work on housing advocacy. The Trump-related agreement has sparked debate within the legal community, with some praising it as pragmatic and others criticizing it as compromising firm independence.Former Manhattan US attorney leaves Paul Weiss for law firm fighting Trump | ReutersA federal judge has given final approval to a groundbreaking $2.8 billion antitrust settlement between the NCAA, its Power Five conferences, and student-athletes, allowing for direct payments to college athletes for the first time. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the deal, which also resolves ongoing litigation over name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, was fair and served pro-competitive purposes despite concerns raised over team roster limits and compensation caps. As part of the agreement, schools can begin sharing up to 22% of their athletic revenue—around $20 million annually per Power Five school—with athletes as soon as this summer.The deal includes $2.75 billion in back payments over 10 years to Division I athletes who played from 2016 onward. Some athletes had objected, citing unfair pay practices, gender inequities, and a lack of input from future players. Wilken responded by approving revisions that exempt some athletes from roster limits and clarified that future athletes can object to the settlement before being bound by it. Less than 0.1% of nearly 390,000 class members formally objected.While this decision marks a shift toward a new financial model in college sports, litigation will continue. Former athletes not covered by this deal are still pursuing claims, and broader legal fights remain over whether athletes should be considered employees. NCAA President Charlie Baker emphasized the deal as a stabilizing step amid ongoing legal and political challenges, including state-level competition over NIL rules.NCAA Wins Final Approval of $2.8 Billion Player-Pay Deal (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Louisiana Adopts State Constitution, McCarthy Dies, and Birmingham CampaignOn May 2, 1939, Louisiana adopted its current state constitution, known as the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which at the time marked a significant overhaul of state governance. Though originally adopted in 1921, it underwent critical amendments and re-ratification processes culminating on this date to reflect broader federal constitutional principles, especially concerning civil rights and governance reforms. This version would go on to become one of the most amended constitutions in the U.S., highlighting Louisiana's complex political and legal environment, particularly around issues of race, voting, and economic regulation.On the federal level, on May 2, 1957, Senator Joseph McCarthy died, signaling the end of one of the most controversial chapters in American legal and political history. McCarthy had become the face of the post-war Red Scare, using Senate hearings and investigations to accuse numerous government officials and private citizens of Communist sympathies without substantial evidence. His tactics led to the coining of the term “McCarthyism,” representing the broader trend of reckless accusations without due process, a violation of basic legal protections. His downfall began with the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, where his aggressive questioning was televised, turning public opinion sharply against him.Also on May 2, 1963, during the Birmingham Campaign, hundreds of African American children and teenagers marched in Birmingham, Alabama, as part of a civil rights strategy to provoke mass arrests and draw national attention to segregation. The police response, using dogs and fire hoses on peaceful demonstrators, shocked the nation and galvanized support for federal civil rights legislation. These events laid crucial groundwork for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which fundamentally altered American legal frameworks surrounding discrimination.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, never one to sugarcoat institutional danger, pulled no punches in a recent address where she warned that political attacks on the judiciary—particularly from Donald Trump and his orbit—aren't just angry outbursts. They're strategic. “Not random,” she emphasized, but seemingly calculated to chill the bench and warp the public's view of judicial independence. Speaking in Puerto Rico at a judges' conference, she framed the threats and harassment against judges as not merely inappropriate, but corrosive to democracy itself—an erosion of the rule of law masquerading as political speech.While Jackson didn't name Trump directly (a nod, perhaps, to judicial decorum), she acknowledged “the elephant in the room.” That elephant has been stomping around the judiciary for years, from defying court orders to demanding impeachments of judges who don't rule his way. Chief Justice John Roberts—no firebrand liberal—has already rebuked Trump this year for trying to undermine judicial authority. Jackson's remarks, which reportedly drew a standing ovation, echoed deeper concerns among legal scholars about an impending constitutional crisis fueled by executive overreach and coordinated judicial delegitimization.With a 6–3 conservative majority still holding firm on the Supreme Court, her comments are more than ideological protest. They're a pointed reminder that the judiciary's legitimacy isn't just under rhetorical attack—it's being targeted as a political obstacle. And in Jackson's view, the stakes couldn't be higher.US Supreme Court Justice Jackson criticizes Trump's attacks on judges | ReutersDonald Trump's judicial conveyor belt is up and running again. Today, May 1, 2025, he announced his first federal judicial nominee since retaking the White House: Whitney Hermandorfer, a conservative legal operative from Tennessee who's clerked for three sitting Supreme Court justices and currently works under the state's Republican Attorney General. If confirmed, she'll take a seat on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—a vacancy that lingered after Biden's nominee stalled amid GOP opposition from Tennessee's own senators.Trump's post on Truth Social didn't mince words: Hermandorfer is a “Fighter,” a term that doubles as both a branding strategy and a judicial philosophy. Her resume backs that up—she's defended Tennessee's abortion ban and fought Biden-era protections for transgender students. Translation: she's been in the legal trenches of the culture war and emerged as a reliable soldier for the right.This nomination is the opening salvo in what could be a new wave of over 100 judicial appointments in Trump's second term, offering him another shot at reshaping the federal bench after appointing 234 judges—including three Supreme Court justices—during his first. Hermandorfer is stepping into a seat vacated by Judge Jane Stranch, an Obama appointee, whose intended successor under Biden, Karla Campbell, never got her Senate vote thanks to a post-election deal between Democrats and Republicans to fast-track some trial court nominees at the cost of four appellate picks.The judicial arms race is back. And this time, the Senate arithmetic—and the vacancies left behind—may tilt even harder in Trump's favor.Trump makes first judicial nomination since returning to White House | ReutersGoogle's legal team is headed to federal court Friday to plead with Judge Leonie Brinkema not to yank apart its advertising tech empire. At stake is nothing short of the future architecture of online advertising. The DOJ is pushing to force Google to divest key parts of its Google Ad Manager, including the ad exchange and publisher ad server—core infrastructure for monetizing digital content. Think of it as ripping out the plumbing from the internet's ad economy.Judge Brinkema has already ruled that Google unlawfully tied its ad server and ad exchange, leveraging its dominance in a way that stifled competition and hurt publishers. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of their market behavior. Still, Google insists that a forced breakup isn't just excessive—it's legally unjustified. Their position is these tools do more than just hawk banner ads, and the DOJ's remedy would be a regulatory overreach.In the backdrop is another case in D.C., where the DOJ is toying with the idea of making Google sell Chrome—the browser—over its search dominance. Google clearly doesn't want a repeat of that nightmare here.So, the message from Mountain View is clear: Let's talk tweaks, not torpedoes. But Brinkema's already signaled she sees systemic harm. Whether that translates into structural remedies—or just more behavioral promises—now depends on how persuasive Google's lawyers can be without sounding like they're defending a monopoly.Google will seek to avoid ad tech spinoff in antitrust case | ReutersThis week's closing theme brings us into the fiery imagination of Hector Berlioz, the 19th-century French composer who lived as intensely as he wrote. Berlioz was a Romantic through and through—equal parts visionary, dramatist, and eccentric. His music defied convention, his orchestration exploded boundaries, and his literary obsession with Goethe's Faust gave rise to one of his most enigmatic and powerful works: La Damnation de Faust (The Damnation of Faust), completed in 1846.Not quite an opera, not quite a cantata, Berlioz called it a "dramatic legend"—a hybrid form that suited his unconventional style and theatrical flair. Drawing from Gérard de Nerval's French translation of Faust, the work traces the tortured scholar's tragic arc: from existential despair, to enchanted pastoral scenes, to infernal damnation, all wrapped in Berlioz's vivid orchestral color. Its fourth part, the “Ride to the Abyss” and “Pandemonium,” is especially striking—a blazing descent into hell that's often performed independently, particularly around Walpurgis Night on April 30 and May 1, when tales of witches' sabbaths and demonic revels echo the scene's imagery.At its premiere, The Damnation of Faust baffled audiences and bombed commercially, though it has since been recognized as one of Berlioz's masterpieces, showcasing his flair for narrative, his taste for the macabre, and his unmatched orchestral daring. It remains a high watermark for musical storytelling without staging—and an apt closer for a week shadowed by ambition, unrest, and devilish bargains.Without further ado, The Damnation of Faust, by Hector Berlioz. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Army-McCarthy Hearings BeginOn April 22, 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings began in Washington, D.C., marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The televised proceedings, which stretched over two months, were convened to investigate conflicting accusations between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the U.S. Army. McCarthy claimed the Army was sheltering communists; the Army countered that McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had improperly pressured military officials to give preferential treatment to a former McCarthy aide.These hearings drew millions of viewers and brought McCarthy's aggressive, often unsubstantiated allegations into public view. Under questioning, McCarthy's bullying tactics and disregard for evidence became increasingly apparent. The most famous moment came when Army counsel Joseph Welch rebuked McCarthy with the now-historic line, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a turning point in the hearings and in public perception of McCarthy.As support for McCarthy dwindled, the hearings exposed the dangers of reckless accusations without due process, a central legal concern during the Red Scare. Later that year, the Senate formally censured McCarthy, effectively ending his political influence. The hearings stand as a cautionary tale about the abuse of investigatory powers and the erosion of civil liberties in times of national fear. They also highlight the essential role of transparency and accountability in American governance. The legacy of the Army-McCarthy hearings continues to inform debates over the balance between national security and individual rights.Alphabet's Google faces a major antitrust trial starting Monday in Washington, as the U.S. Department of Justice and 38 state attorneys general seek to break up its dominance in the search engine market. Central to the government's case is a proposal for Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially even its Android operating system if competition isn't restored. Prosecutors argue that Google's exclusive agreements, like those paying billions to Apple and other companies to be the default search engine, have harmed rivals, including emerging AI firms like Perplexity AI and OpenAI.Google insists the DOJ's demands are extreme and warns that ending these deals could harm browser makers like Mozilla and raise smartphone costs. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is presiding over the trial, expected to last three weeks. Google plans to appeal any unfavorable ruling and argues that its deals help fund free, open-source technology. The case follows a separate DOJ victory last week, where a judge found Google maintained an illegal monopoly in ad tech. The trial's outcome could dramatically reshape how Americans access information online and influence future antitrust enforcement, with similar scrutiny already aimed at companies like Meta.Google faces trial in US bid to end search monopoly | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Minnesota's appeal defending its law that barred individuals under 21 from obtaining permits to carry handguns in public. This decision leaves in place a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case is one of many that have challenged age-based and other gun restrictions following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established that firearm regulations must align with the nation's historical traditions to be valid.Gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Firearms Policy Coalition, challenged the law, arguing it infringed on the rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. Minnesota defended the law as a modest safety measure, noting that youths already have access to guns under specific conditions, such as hunting or supervision. The 8th Circuit disagreed, saying the state failed to prove that young adults posed a sufficient threat or that the restriction had historical precedent.While more than 30 states have similar age-related laws, Minnesota's could no longer be enforced once the appeals process concluded. The case underscores how courts are interpreting and applying the Bruen test, which has reshaped the legal landscape for gun laws. Although the Supreme Court has upheld some modern firearm restrictions, it has consistently signaled that any such laws must fit within historical frameworks.US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I talk about the risk posed by the Department of Government Efficiency's (DGE) access to taxpayer data. If the federal government wants more access to your tax data, it should have to meet a high bar—proving a clear need, protecting the information, and being transparent about how it's used. Right now, the DGE, spearheaded by Elon Musk, is pushing for expanded access to the IRS's Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS), which holds deeply sensitive taxpayer records. The rationale? To root out fraud and streamline federal oversight. But noble intentions aren't a substitute for safeguards—and as it stands, DGE hasn't provided any clear guardrails for how it would handle this data.We've seen how this can go wrong. In Sweden, the national tax agency is now facing a lawsuit for sharing taxpayer data with private companies, including marketers and data brokers. Sweden's commitment to constitutional transparency has been used to justify these disclosures, even as they appear to violate Europe's strict privacy laws. It's a reminder that transparency can be weaponized, and privacy treated as an inconvenience. If that sounds extreme, just imagine your tax return fueling a marketing database in the name of government openness.In the U.S., Section 6103 of the tax code makes unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer data a felony. DGE's quest to tap into the IDRS raises serious questions about whether internal access could amount to disclosure, especially if it increases the risk of leaks, misuse, or political meddling. DGE already has access to some refund-related data, but it's now seeking far more granular insight—without explaining what it will do with it, or how it will prevent abuse.What Sweden's case makes clear is that even the best intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes when privacy is not treated as sacrosanct. The U.S. should take that warning seriously. Taxpayer data is among the most sensitive information the government holds. Expanding access to it—especially by an agency as vaguely defined as DGE—should not happen without a fully transparent, purpose-limited, and accountable framework.Until then, DGE should not be granted access to the IRS's IDRS system or any individualized taxpayer information. The risks are too high, and the protections too flimsy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Give to help Chris make Truce! Joseph McCarthy was an unexceptional junior congressman from Wisconsin. He grew up brawling in the streets, playing cards, and embellishing his stories. Then, during a Lincoln Day address in 1950, Joseph McCarthy told an audience that he had a list of 205 communists working in the government. Within days, he was a household name. McCarthy started "investigating" suspected communists in the American government, focusing on the US State Department. Along the way, he brought in a young lawyer named Roy Cohn. Cohn was already known for his work sending Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair. Now, he and McCarthy bullied and cajoled during private hearings. Being labeled a communist, or even a suspected communist could ruin a person's career. People committed suicide rather than face their scrutiny. Their reign lasted four years, ending in the televised broadcasts of the Army-McCarthy hearings in which a lawyer asked if McCarthy had any decency. That was pretty much it for McCarthy. But Roy Cohn went on to have a well-connected career, providing legal services for the mob and Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News. He also became a mentor to a young real estate mogul named Donald Trump. Famous people like Andy Warhol attended his birthday party at Studio 54. Cohn died of AIDS, something that was killing gay men rapidly in the 1980s, though he denied he ever had it. This is the story of two men allowed to prey on the fears of the American people for their own gain. One fell hard, the other found himself fighting against his own people. In this episode, Chris interviews Larry Tye, author of the book "Demagogue". He's also the author of "Satchel: The Life and Times of an American Legend" and "Bobby Kennedy: The Making of a Liberal Icon". Sources: "Demagogue" by Larry Tye Helpful article about the Rosenbergs Article about Klaus Fuchs McCarthy's speech in Wheeling, WV New York Times, February 23, 1954. Pages 16-17 “Transcript of General Zwicker's Testimony Before the McCarthy Senate Subcommittee” Video from Army-McCarthy hearings (forward to the last 20 minutes if you want to jump to the stuff I used) The guest list for Roy Cohn's birthday at Studio 54 Discussion Questions: Why do we love demagogues? Who are other demagogues in American history? The threat of communists in the government in the 1950s is sometimes downplayed. Do you think it was a real concern? McCarthy ran for Congress in an illegal way while still in the Marines. How do you feel about that? Roy Cohn sometimes went against his own people, claiming that gay people did not deserve equal rights. What might have been his motivation? Do you see any crossover between McCarthy, Cohn, and Donald Trump? Cohn died of AIDs in the 1980s when the disease was at its peak. Why might he have wanted to keep his illness a secret? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

George and Joe invite you to Does This Still Work Podcast to start deducting. Was it Colonel Mustard with the wrench? Was it Ms. Scarlett with a candlestick? Or was it the boys figuring out if this film still works? Links You can rate and review us in these places (and more, probably) Does This Still Work? - TV Podcast https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/does-this-still-work-1088105 ‎Does This Still Work? on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/does-this-still-work/id1492570867 Hudson Mystery https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-news/124066387/ Hudson Contagion https://meaww.com/hollywood-rock-hudson-kiss-linda-evans-dynasty-aids-infamous-with-hunt-netflix-ryan-murphy-series Mengele https://www.newspapers.com/article/spokane-chronicle/124069148/ Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army%E2%80%93McCarthy_hearings  

This episode explores Anatomy of a Murder (1959), the legendary courtroom drama produced and directed by Otto Preminger. The film features an outstanding cast, including Jimmy Stewart, Lee Remick, Ben Gazzara, George C. Scott, and Eve Arden. It also includes the real-life Joseph N. Welch, who played a key role in finally taking down Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. The film is widely regarded as one of the best courtroom dramas in the history of cinema. Joshua Dratel, a leading criminal defense attorney, joins as my guest expert to help examine this memorable film and to break down  its timeless insights into the American criminal trial.Timestamps:0:00     Introduction4:30     What makes a great courtroom drama?8:50     Paul Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) interviews his client (Ben Gazzara) 16:04   Coming up with the defense of “irresistible impulse”19:00   The role of cross-examination 26:22   Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) gets his defense in through cross-examination29:08   The motive and the act in criminal law33:43   Managing a defendant's family 38:58   Dressing your client for court40:57   Attacking the victim: who's on trial here? 43:18   Claude Dancer (George C. Scott) grills Laura Manion (Lee Remick)45:48   Impeaching the jailhouse informant48:52   Grappling with questions of rape and consent circa 195951:13   Asking a witness one question too many  54:36  A classic reasonable doubt case58:06   Poetic justice: Biegler is retained on a new case and his practice survives1:01:41 Legal realism in fiction: None of it happened, but it's all trueFurther Reading:Bogdanovich, Peter, Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors (Alfred A. Knopf, 1997)Christley, Jamie N., “Otto Preminger's ‘Anatomy of a Murder' on the Criterion Collection” Slant Magazine (Feb. 24, 2012), https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/anatomy-of-a-murder/Fidler, John, “‘Anatomy of a Murder,'” Sense of Cinema (Mar. 2013), https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2013/cteq/anatomy-of-a-murder/Huff, Timothy, “Anatomy of a Murder,” Legal Studies Forum vol. 24, issues 3 & 4, p. 661 (2000)Nerdwriter1, “Anatomy of ‘Anatomy of a Murder'” (video), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Tm-7DvR2c Tarr, Nina W., “A Different Ethical Issue in ‘Anatomy of a Murder': Friendly Fire from the Cowboy-Lawyer,” Journal of the Legal Profession vol. 32, pp. 137-60 (2008) Tobias, Scott, “‘Anatomy of a Murder,'” A.V. Club (Mar. 14, 2012), https://www.avclub.com/anatomy-of-a-murder-1798171960  Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilm

US Senator Joseph McCarthy unleashed an era of suspicion on the American people as he went looking for communists. His trials, both public and behind closed doors, focused on the government as well as Hollywood and the Army. He claimed that he had lists of communists, but failed to produce that list. It wasn't until the Army-McCarthy hearings in the spring and summer of 1954 that his unfounded hearings were put to rest. One year later the play Inherit the Wind opened. It was supposed to be a critique of the McCarthy era set inside of a re-telling of the Scopes "monkey" trial. In doing so, it got many of the facts wrong. John Scopes never spent any time in jail. He didn't have a girlfriend, and that girlfriend was not berated on the stand. The townspeople of Dayton, TN were welcoming to both Bryan and Darrow. To explore this work of art and revisionist history I spoke with the hosts of the Seeing and Believing podcast Kevin McLenithan and Sarah Welch-Larson. Select differences between the Scopes trial and Inherit the Wind John Scopes was arrested but never spent time in jail. He was "arrested" in a soda fountain where the test trial was conceived and not in school. Scopes later claimed he never taught evolution, which is why he never took the stand in real life. The entire case was set up as a publicity stunt to bring attention to the town of Dayton, TN. They got the idea when they saw an ad placed by the ACLU. The character of Rachel did not exist in real life. The people of Dayton were welcoming to both Darrow and Bryan and Scopes was loved by many. He even spent time swimming with the prosecution between trial sessions. The moment when Bryan was on trial was held outdoors. H.L. Mencken was not some loveable curmudgeon. He was an anti-semite and a racist. Dayton largely did not vote for Bryan when he ran for president. Bryan died a few days after the trial, not while in the courtroom. Darrow did not carry a copy of the Bible and Darwin out of the courtroom. The textbook in question during the trial was clearly pro-eugenics, was sold in the soda fountain, and had been approved by the state textbook committee. The preachers of the town were kind. The odd sermon given the night of the trial never happened and the script adds a lot of strange things that are not in the Bible. Bryan wished the law to have no penalty, unlike his stand-in in the movie who hoped for a harsher punishment. Sources Inherit the Wind (1960 version) starring Spencer Tracy Summer for the Gods by Edward Larson Chris' own visit to the Dayton museum dedicated to the trial Helpful video about the Napoleon painting Discussion Questions: Where is the line between art and propaganda? Does art have an obligation to the truth? Do you see McCarthyism in Inherit the Wind? Is Inherit the Wind a fair way of discussing the Scopes trial, or a work of revisionist history? Why does it matter? What would it mean for a group that feels maligned and misunderstood to have a film misrepresent them? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When Robert Draper of the New York Times recently asked Rose Sperry, a state committeewoman for Arizona's G.O.P., to name the first Republican leader she ever admired, she immediately mentioned former Wisconsin senator Joe McCarthy. “I grew up during the time that Joe McCarthy was doing his talking,” Sperry said. “I was young, but I was listening. If he were here today, I would say, ‘Get him in there as president!'”I also grew up during the time Joe McCarthy was “doing his talking,” and I was young and listening, too. But I would not want Joe McCarthy to be president. Neither, let me add, did my father. Ed Reich called himself a liberal Republican, in the days when such creatures still existed. He voted for Thomas Dewey in 1948 (cancelling my mother's vote for Harry Truman), and then for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 (cancelling my mother's votes for Adlai Stevenson), and he thought highly of New York State's Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, and its Republican senator, Jacob Javits — neither of whom would last a second in today's G.O.P.But Ed Reich could not abide bullies and he detested Joe McCarthy. My father thought that anyone who had to bully someone else to feel good about himself was despicable. Bullying led to antisemitism and antisemitism had led to the holocaust. In 1947, Ed Reich moved us from Scranton to a little village in the country some sixty miles north of New York City, called South Salem, so as to be within equal driving distance of his two women's clothing stores, in Norwalk, Connecticut, and Peekskill, New York. Soon after we arrived, a delegation of older men from the village came by to inform us that South Salem was a “Christian community” and we were not welcome there. That was the day my father decided we'd stay put in South Salem. “I'll show those b******s,” he said. Senator Joseph McCarthy had a special place in Ed Reich's pantheon of evil bullies. McCarthy didn't just attack those he claimed were members of the Communist Party. He did it with malice. McCarthy's crusade against “subversives” extended into the mainstream of America and American politics, as he ridiculed the “pitiful squealing” of “those egg-sucking phony liberals” who “would hold sacrosanct those Communists and queers.” Every time McCarthy's image came across the six-inch screen on the Magnavox television in our living room, my father would shout “son of a B***H” so loudly it made me shudder. In Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, historian Ellen Wolf Schrecker describes a movement that “punished thousands of law-abiding Americans and scared millions more into silence, destroying much of the left and seriously narrowing the political spectrum.” McCarthyism was the byproduct of the Republican Party's postwar effort to eradicate the New Deal by linking it to communism. The G.O.P. portrayed the midterm election of 1946 as a “battle between Republicanism and communism.” The Republican National Committee chairman claimed that the federal bureaucracy was filled with “pink puppets.” According to John Nichols, in The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party, Southern segregationist Democrats joined the red-baiting rhetoric. Mississippi senator Theodore Bilbo, a Klansman who had filibustered to block anti-lynching legislation, described multiracial labor unions' advocacy for civil rights as the work of “northern communists.” Representative John Elliott Rankin, a fiercely racist and antisemitic Mississippi Democrat who helped establish the House Un-American Activities Committee as a standing congressional committee, called the CIO's Southern organizing campaign “a communist plot” and charged that it would lead to more Black voting rights. “We're asleep at the switch,” he warned. “They're taking over this country; we've got to stop them if we want this country.”The backlash was successful. In the 1946 midterms, Democrats lost control of both the Senate and the House. Wisconsin ended its era of progressive Republican La Follettes and sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate. California replaced New Dealer Jerry Voorhis with a young Republican lawyer who had already figured out how to use red-baiting as a political tool. His name was Richard Nixon. In December 1946, at the founding convention of the Progressive Citizens of America, FDR's former vice president, Henry Wallace, saw the red scare for what it was — a tool of the most powerful economic forces in America. “We shall … repel all the attacks of the plutocrats and monopolists who will brand us as Reds,” he said. If it is traitorous to believe in peace — we are traitors. If it is communistic to believe in prosperity for all — we are communists. If it is unAmerican to believe in freedom from monopolistic dictation — we are unAmerican. We are more American than the neo-Fascists who attack us. The more we are attacked the more likely we are to succeed, provided we are ready and willing to counterattack.But there was no counterattack. The red scare continued to gain ground, encouraged by J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the F.B.I. Soon after the release of Frank Capra's loving ode to America, “It's a Wonderful Life” in January 1947, the F.B.I. (using a report by an ad-hoc group that included Fountainhead writer and future Trump pin-up girl Ayn Rand) warned that the movie represented “rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘scrooge-type' so that he would be the most hated man in the picture.” The movie “deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. This … is a common trick used by Communists.” The F.B.I. report compared “It's a Wonderful Life” to a Soviet film, and alleged that Frank Capra was “associated with left-wing groups” and that screenwriters Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were “very close to known Communists.”President Truman succumbed to the mounting anti-communist hysteria. On March 21, 1947 he signed Executive Order 9835, the Loyalty Order that ushered in loyalty oaths and background checks, and created the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. Yet the progressive left remained silent. As the 1950 election approached, a Times headline announced that the “Left is Silent in Campaign.” Even the American Civil Liberties Union, whose roots lay in the first Red Scare of the World War I era, was reluctant to take the lead in opposing the threat to civil liberties in the second Red Scare of the 1950s. California Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas, dubbed the “Pink Lady” for her supposed communist sympathies, tried for the Senate in 1950. She survived a bitter primary battle only to be beaten in November by red-bater Richard Nixon. On June 9, 1954, I sat at my father's side on our living room couch, watching the Army-McCarthy hearings. McCarthy had accused the U.S. Army of having poor security at a top-secret facility. Joseph Welch, a private attorney, was representing the Army. McCarthy charged that one of Welch's young staff attorneys was a communist. “Son of a B***H,” my father shouted.As McCarthy continued his attack on Welch's staff attorney, Welch broke in, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.”I was spellbound. McCarthy didn't stop. “Son of a B***H,” Ed Reich shouted ten times more loudly. The earth shook. At this point, Welch demanded that McCarthy listen to him. “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator,” he said. “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?” Almost overnight, as the Senate Historical Office recounts, “McCarthy's immense national popularity evaporated. Censured by his Senate colleagues, ostracized by his party and ignored by the press, McCarthy died three years later, 48 years old and a broken man.”***During the Army-McCarthy hearings, McCarthy's chief counsel was Roy Cohn. Cohn had gained prominence as the Department of Justice attorney who successfully prosecuted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage, leading to their execution in 1953. The Rosenberg trial had brought the 24-year-old Cohn to the attention of J. Edgar Hoover, who convinced McCarthy to hire Cohn as chief counsel for McCarthy's Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where Cohn became known for his aggressive questioning of suspected communists. My father thought Roy Cohn almost as despicable as Joe McCarthy. After McCarthy's downfall, Cohn proved useful to a young New York real estate developer named Donald Trump who was then undertaking several large construction projects in Manhattan and needed a fixer and mentor. Cohn filled both roles. Fred Trump had got his son's career started by bringing him into the family business of middle-class rentals in Brooklyn and Queens. Cohn established Donald in Manhattan, introducing him to New York's social and political elite, and defending him against a growing list of enemies.In 1973, the Justice Department accused Trump of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in thirty-nine of his properties, alleging that Trump quoted different rental terms and conditions to prospective tenants based on their race, and made false “no vacancy” statements to Black people seeking to rent. Representing Trump, Roy Cohn filed a countersuit against the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were “irresponsible and baseless.” Although the countersuit was unsuccessful, Trump settled the charges out of court in 1975, asserting he was satisfied that the agreement did not “compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.” Three years later, when the Trump Organization was again in court, this time for violating terms of the 1975 settlement, Cohn called the charges “nothing more than a rehash of complaints by a couple of planted malcontents.” Trump denied the charges. Cohn was also involved in the construction of Trump Tower, helping secure concrete during a city-wide Teamster strike through a union leader linked to a mob boss. At about this time, Cohn introduced Trump to another of Cohn's clients, Rupert Murdoch. During Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, Cohn helped a young Roger Stone arrange for John Anderson to be nominated by New York's Liberal Party, thereby splitting the state's opposition to Reagan and allowing Reagan to carry the state with 46 percent of the vote. Stone later recounted that Cohn gave him a suitcase to be dropped off at the office of a lawyer influential in Liberal Party circles. Speaking after the statute of limitations for bribery had expired, Stone said, “I paid his law firm. Legal fees. I don't know what he did for the money, but whatever it was, the Liberal Party reached its right conclusion out of a matter of principle.”In 1986, Cohn was disbarred by the New York State Bar for unethical conduct after attempting to defraud a dying client by forcing the client to sign a will amendment leaving Cohn his fortune. (Cohn died five weeks later from AIDS-related complications.)In his first and best-known book, “The Art of the Deal,” Trump distinguished between integrity and loyalty — and made clear he preferred loyalty. Trump compared Roy Cohn to “all the hundreds of ‘respectable' guys who make careers out of boasting about their uncompromising integrity but have absolutely no loyalty ... What I liked most about Roy Cohn was that he would do just the opposite.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Tonight is the eighth and last of the scheduled public hearings of the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack (the committee is still gathering evidence and may schedule additional hearings). So this is a good time to press the pause button and examine what the committee is accomplishing. The committee is clearly building a criminal case against Trump and his closest enablers of seditious conspiracy, a crime defined as “conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States or to oppose by force the authority thereof.” I expect the committee will make a criminal referral to the Justice Department, handing over all its evidence. Ideally, Trump, along with Giuliani, Powell, Stone, Flynn, Navarro, Bannon, Meadows, and other co-conspirators, will be convicted and end up in jail. But the Committee has a second purpose — one that has received too little attention: to stop Trump's continuing attack on American democracy. Even as the committee reveals Trump's attempted coup in the months leading up to and during the January 6 attack, the attempted coup continues. Trump hasn't stopped giving speeches to stir up angry mobs with his Big Lie — he'll be giving another tomorrow in Arizona. Trump hasn't stopped pushing states to alter the outcomes of the 2020 election — last week he urged Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to support a resolution that would retract Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes cast for Biden. Trump is actively backing candidates who propound the Lie. Several prominent Republican candidates for the Senate and for governor — such as JD Vance in Ohio, Blake Masters in Arizona, and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania — are running on it. Republican candidates across America are using increasingly violent language. Republicans lawmakers in several states are enacting legislation to take over election machinery and ignore the popular vote. Meanwhile, the lives of committee members and their families have been threatened. Witnesses are receiving gangster-style warnings not to cooperate. The committee's message to all of America, including Republicans: Stop supporting this treachery. In other words, the committee's work is not just backward-looking — revealing Trump's attempted coup. It is also forward-looking, appealing to Americans to reject his continuing attempted coup. In order to accomplish this, the committee is doing six important things:First, it's making crystal clear that the continuing attempted coup is based on a lie — which is why the committee has repeatedly shown Trump's Attorney General William Barr, saying:I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations [of voter fraud], but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public, that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn't count and that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there, and I told them that it was — that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that. And it was doing a grave disservice to the country. Second, the committee is showing that the battle between democracy and authoritarian is non-partisan. Not only are the committee's vice-chairman Liz Cheney and committee member Adam Kinzinger, Republican representatives, but most of the committee's witnesses are Republicans who worked in the Trump White House or as Republican-elected state officials, or they staffed Republican legislators or served as judges appointed by Republican presidents. All appear before the committee as American citizens who are disgusted by and worried about Trump's attempted coup. When Cheney displayed a message Trump tweeted after the assault on the Capitol began, in which he claimed Vice President Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done," Cheney asked former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson for her reaction. Hutchinson responded:As a staffer that works to always represent the administration to the best of my ability, and to showcase the good things that he had done for the country, I remember feeling frustrated, disappointed, it felt personal, I was really sad. As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic, it was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie.Third, the committee is appealing to Republican lawmakers to stop supporting Trump's continuing attempted coup. During the first televised hearing, Liz Cheney issued an explicit warning: We take our oath to defend the United States constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight. I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain. Fourth, the committee wants the public to see that average Americans have fallen for Trump's treachery, with disastrous results. Witness Stephen Ayres, who described himself as “nothing but a family man and a working man” participated in the January 6 attack because Trump “basically put out, you know, come to the Stop the Steal rally, you know, and I felt like I needed to be down here. … I was, you know, I was very upset, as were most of his supporters.” When Liz Cheney asked Ayers, “Would it have made a difference to you to know that President Trump himself had no evidence of widespread fraud?” he replied, “Oh, definitely … I may not have come down here then.”Fifth, the committee is reminding Americans of their duties to democracy. Committee chair Bennie Thompson, last week:When I think about the most basic way to explain the importance of elections in the United States, there's a phrase that always comes to mind. It may sound straightforward, but it's meaningful. We settle our differences at the ballot box. Sometimes my choice prevails, sometimes yours does, but it's that simple. We cast our votes. We count the votes. If something seems off with the results, we can challenge them in court, and then we accept the results. When you're on the losing side, that doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. And in the United States, there's plenty you can do and say so. You can protest. You can organize. You can get ready for the next election to try to make sure your side has a better chance the next time the people settle their differences at the ballot box. But you can't turn violent. You can't try to achieve your desired outcome through force or harassment or intimidation. Any real leader who sees their supporters going down that path, approaching that line has a responsibility to say stop, we gave it our best, we came up short, we try again next time, because we settle our differences at the ballot box.Others on the committee have spoken about the danger to democracy of mobs and demagogues. Here's committee member Jamie Raskin: In 1837, a racist mob in Alton, Illinois broke into the offices of an abolitionist newspaper and killed its editor, Elijah Lovejoy. Lincoln wrote a speech in which he said that no transatlantic military giant could ever crush us as a nation, even with all of the fortunes in the world. But if downfall ever comes to America, he said, we ourselves would be its author and finisher. If racist mobs are encouraged by politicians to rampage and terrorize, Lincoln said, they will violate the rights of other citizens and quickly destroy the bonds of social trust necessary for democracy to work. Mobs and demagogues will put us on a path to political tyranny, Lincoln said. This very old problem has returned with new ferocity today, as a president who lost an election deployed a mob, which included dangerous extremists, to attack the constitutional system of election and the peaceful transfer of power. Finally, the committee is showing that Trump's attempted coup is ongoing. Near the end of last week's hearing, Cheney revealed that:After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump's call and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice. Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously.I have no idea whether the hearings will lead to criminal indictments and convictions of Trump and his enablers, but I do believe the hearings are finding their way into the public's consciousness. This may prove to be as — if not more — valuable than a criminal proceeding. Not even a criminal conviction will change the minds of those who believe Trump's Big Lie; to the contrary, it may make them even more suspicious or paranoid, possibly leading to further violence. But the hearings may begin to convince Trump supporters that he's a dangerous charlatan. The hearings already appear to be having an effect. The percentage of Republicans who say Trump misled people about the 2020 election has ticked up since last month, while a majority of Americans say Trump committed a crime. At the same time, Trump's enormous fundraising operation has slowed. A New York Times/Siena College poll last week that showed nearly half of Republican primary voters would rather vote for a Republican other than Trump in 2024. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who may run in 2024, has been gaining on Trump in some polls, including in New Hampshire, the first primary state, where one recent survey had DeSantis statistically tied with Trump among Republican primary voters. In 1954, I watched the Army-McCarthy hearings from our living room sofa — my father and I squinting into a tiny television screen (my father yelling “son-of-a-b***h!” every time McCarthy or his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, spoke). McCarthy had picked a fight with the U.S. Army, charging lax security at a top-secret army facility. The army hired Boston lawyer Joseph Welch to make its case. At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch's young staff attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. As the television audience looked on, Welch responded with the lines that ultimately ended McCarthy's career: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"Almost overnight, McCarthy's immense national popularity evaporated. Censured by his Senate colleagues, ostracized by his party, and ignored by the press, McCarthy died three years later, 48 years old and a broken man. Is there a lesson here?Please consider a paid or gift subscription to help sustain this work. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

By June 1954 network radio drama was facing huge sponsor disinterest. Shows canceled in the first half of the year included The Quiz Kids, Dr. Christian, Front Page Farrell, Bulldog Drummond, Rocky Fortune, Ozzie and Harriet, and The Six Shooter. ABC, CBS, Mutual, and NBC reduced ad sale charges for the sixth consecutive year. It was an attempt to offset TVs broadening market share. It didn't work. For the first time in sixteen years revenue fell. The only category to see an increase in sales was local advertising, and even that rose less than one percent. In 1948, radio's top show was heard by roughly twenty-eight million people. In 1950, by twenty million. In 1952, by fourteen million. And in 1954, by roughly nine million. West-coast radio actors, like Herb Vigran and Herb Ellis were moving into TV, but television was already going through budgetary changes. By the summer of 1954, more than sixty percent of U.S. homes had a TV set. I Love Lucy pulled a rating of nearly sixty. Radio's top show, People Are Funny had a rating of 8.4. Along with oncoming transistor sets, nearly thirty million cars now had radios, but there was still no system to measure this audience. The next year it was estimated that out-of-home listening added an additional forty percent to at-home audiences. People Are Funny's actual rating was closer to twelve. But these incidentals didn't matter to the industry's character actors. Network production habits were changing. More and more documentaries and news were airing from New York, more and more drama was airing from Los Angeles. Things would be tougher by the end of the decade, but we're not there yet. Tonight, we'll head to June of 1954 as network radio reaches a point of no return. ____________ As June got underway, the Army-McCarthy hearings dragged on. This early focus was on the continued testimony from McCarthy attorney Roy Cohn, cross-examined by Ray Jenkins. After lunch Vermont Republican Senator Ralph Flanders compared McCarthy, his own party mate, to Adolph Hitler. He accused him of “axe-happy attempts to divide the country and split the Republican party.” He also compared McCarthy to Dennis The Menace. Flanders speculated that if McCarthy were a double-agent for the Communists, he would have been doing a perfect job. Later on McCarthy accused Flanders of being a senile, racist, religious bigot.

On Friday May 28th, 1954 as beaches and public parks opened for Memorial Day weekend, families hopped in their cars, turned on the radio dial, and heard the continuing testimony of McCarthy's Attorney Roy Cohn during the Army-McCarthy Hearing. CBS radio was there. Cohn played a major role in McCarthy's crusade. He helped create the Lavender Scare, which claimed overseas Communists blackmailed closeted government employee homosexuals into passing on secrets. Convinced that the employment of homosexuals was now a threat to national security, President Eisenhower signed an executive order on April 29th, 1953, banning homosexuals from working for the federal government. Cohn also saw that colleague G. David Schine receive special treatment when he was drafted in the U.S. Army in 1953. He contacted military officials from the Secretary of the Army down to Schine's company commander and demanded that Schine be given light duties, extra leave, and exemption from an overseas assignment. It was this behavior that hastened McCarthy's downfall, as during these hearings both Cohn and McCarthy claimed the Army was holding Schine “hostage” to squelch McCarthy's Communist investigations. Cohn testified from May 27th through June 2nd.

In January 1953, Joseph McCarthy began his second term as U.S. Senator from Wisconsin as the Republican Party regained control of the Senate. McCarthy was made chairman of the Committee on Government Operations. This included a permanent subcommittee that allowed McCarthy to continue Communist investigations within the government. He appointed Roy Cohn as chief counsel and Bobby Kennedy as assistant. McCarthy's committee investigated the U.S. Army. They believed the Army Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth had been infiltrated. At the time, the investigation was largely fruitless. Then the Army accused McCarthy of seeking special treatment for Private G. David Schine, a chief consultant and close friend of Cohn's. Schine had been drafted the previous year. The Senate decided that these conflicting charges should be investigated. South Dakota Republican Senator Karl Mundt chaired the subcommittee. John G. Adams was the Army's Counsel. Joseph Welch, Special Counsel. The hearings were telecast nationally on both ABC and the DuMont network. Eighty million people saw these hearings that lasted thirty-six days. They began on April 22nd. CBS Radio was there. Early in the hearings, a photo of Private Schine was produced, with Joseph Welch accusing Roy Cohn of doctoring the image to show Schine alone with Army Secretary Robert T. Stevens. Cohn and Schine both insisted the picture was unedited. Welch then produced a wider shot of Stevens and Schine with Colonel Jack Bradley and McCarthy aide Frank Carr. This lie hurt McCarthy's side. McCarthy was quickly losing steam and allies. His policies were turning up little evidence. His “list of two-hundred known Communists” never materialized and this turn of attention to the Army was a political gamble. It wouldn't work and later would cost McCarthy his position in the Senate.

Link to Article: https://bit.ly/3i2T1VWUnion Busting Is A Bigger Problem Than We All Really KnowIn a public statement addressed to employees earlier this week, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said the company was reviewing policies and procedures to help promote a more respectful and inclusive workplace. To help accomplish that, the company has retained the services of prestigious law firm WilmerHale, which is the same law firm with ties to Amazon and a history of helping other companies from unionizing. Considering ongoing efforts to unionize game workers, the partnership is a little concerning.In an industry that's constantly under fire for discriminatory practices, sexual harassment, grueling crunch conditions, and frequent mass layoffs, unionizing is a hot-button issue. As the state of California's lawsuit against Activision Blizzard demonstrates, video game companies have a well-earned reputation for creating work environments that are at best uncomfortable, at worst downright hostile. That's exactly why the game workers unionization movement has been gaining traction over the past several years.So when Activision Blizzard, a company currently under fire for its discriminatory practices and rampant sexual harassment issues, hires WilmerHale, a law firm with a reputation for union-busting, heads turn and brows furrow.WilmerHale is one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. It's actually a combination of two law firms. There's Boston's Hale and Dorr, founded in 1918, known for representing the U.S. Army pro-bono in the Army-McCarthy hearings in the 1950s as well as President Richard Nixon in 1974's United States v. Nixon. Then there's Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, founded in D.C. in 1962. Founding partner Lloyd Cutler served as an advisor to Presidents Jimmy Carter and William Clinton, and founded the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy. The two storied firms combined to form Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, known as WilmerHale, in 2004. The combined entity is co-headquartered in D.C. and Boston, with offices across the U.S., Europe, and Asia.Support the show (https://bit.ly/2XdAlJC)

One judge may be quite like another ... but this courtroom drama stands apart!Anatomy of a Murder is a 1959 courtroom drama from director Otto Preminger, starring Jimmy Stewart, Lee Remick, Eve Arden, Ben Gazzara, and Army-McCarthy hearings legal icon Joseph Welch, with a jazzy score from Duke Ellington. It's based on a real-life case that defense attorney-turned-Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker wrote under the pen name Robert Traver.Stewart plays a humble country lawyer trying to do the best he can to get his client acquitted in a murder case. And what a murder case it is! There's no question about what happened — a military man gunned down a local bar-owner.  What needs further dissecting is the motive. As it turns out, the bar-owner was accused of raping the military man's wife.Like so many overwhelmed jurors, Áine and Kevin deliberate over the film's pure Michigan setting, delightful cameos, and un-cliched, unflinching look at the justice system, as well as some light topics like misogyny, rape, and alcoholism.Follow us on the usual social media suspects:FacebookTwitterInstagramAnd send us mysterious and intriguing missives at mysterytomepodcast@gmail.com.

Mitt Romney is “enemy number one” in the Trump administration according to Peter Baker, chief White Houe correspondent for the New York Times. “He is loathed in the White House,” says Baker during an interview on the “Utah Politics” podcast. “With [President] Trump, everything is about loyalty, and you’re not allowed to stray from the fold.”“In the Senate, I think Republicans there respect him. They defended him when Trump went after him. They see him as a principled actor,” he added.“He’s a party of one,” added Susan Glasser, a staff writer for the New Yorker, and author of the weekly “Letter from Trump’s Washington” column. Glasser and Baker are the husband and wife reporting team behind the new biography, The Man who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III.Glasser says Romney is a throwback to a previous era of politics, and his willingness to stand up to Trump is reminiscent of Sen. Margaret Chase Smith.“She, of course, was the famous senator who was the lone Republican to stand up to Joseph McCarthy, and it was two years before the Army-McCarthy hearings. She was a party of one for a very long time,” says Glasser. Subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Concerns about corruption depend on actual instances of corruption, which the Fourth Turning encourages by its nature. (Although people won't really be concerned about it until the First Turning starts - too much else going on.)   Credit Mobilier (1872) is one of the main inspirations for this idea of corruption found during First Turnings that started in the Fourth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crédit_Mobilier_scandal As are the Valachi hearings (1963) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valachi_hearings At some level, the McCarthy hearings, along with other investigations into Communist influences, can be seen as concerns about corruption as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army–McCarthy_hearings Can't really talk about Corruption without mentioning the Bloodguard, for whom the Vow was everything, and anything that was not the Vow was Corruption.  https://unbeliever.fandom.com/wiki/Bloodguard

In the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade polarized the nation. Convinced that officials had let Communists infiltrate the military, McCarthy zeroed in on his biggest target yet: the Army. It took a month of tense Senate hearings to uncover the truth… 

 The word for Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy was “Demagogue: which happens to be the title of Larry Tye’s excellent new biography.  The context in which Tye sees the anti-Communist crusader and bully is clear in the book’s sub-title: The Life and Long Shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy.  That 75 year old shadow, Tye says, is on today’s White House.  The key moment of McCarthy’s demise wasn’t when he was challenged by lawyer Joseph Welch, but when the audience at the Army-McCarthy hearings cheered Welch on.  

Emile de Antonio’s 1964 documentary about the Army-McCarthy hearings of ten years earlier, was one of the first directly political…

In 1968, attorney Roy Cohn sat down for an interview with KCBS Radio anchor Frank Knight. At that time, Cohn was less than twenty years removed from his roles in the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg case and the Army-McCarthy hearings, and his work with clients like Aristotle Onassis and Donald Trump was still in the future.

The Army-McCarthy hearings, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, the Select Committee on Benghazi, the Russian hacking probe. Congressional investigations are a staple of American politics, but how do they work? When is it Congress' job to investigate an issue? And what the heck is the difference between a probe and an investigation, anyway? Professor of Government and Policy Linda Fowler guides us through the complicated world of congressional investigations. #civics101pod Submit your questions: civics101@nhpr.org www.civics101podcast.org or call the Civics 101 hotline: 202-798-6865

On this week’s Past Present podcast, Nicole Hemmer, Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, and Neil Young discuss Benghazi and the history of Congressional hearings, Ben Carson and black Republicans, and the state of reality TV today. Here are some links and references mentioned during this week’s show: Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the Congressional committee on Benghazi is just the latest event in a Congressional investigation that has lasted 72 months, inviting comparison to other Congressional hearings, including the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, Watergate, and the Iran-Contra affair. Natalia remarked that liberal media outlets, like the New Yorker, have concluded Clinton emerged triumphant from the hearings, while Neil noted that Fox News had cut away from its broadcast of the hearings once the Republicans appeared to have bungled their case against Clinton.Ben Carson has emerged as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, but African-American Republicans are an increasingly rare group. Niki recommended Leah Wright Rigueur’s book, The Loneliness of the Black Republican, as an excellent recent history of black conservatives and the party of Lincoln.American Idol and Survivor are slumping in the ratings, but is reality TV dead? Neil argued no, pointing to the proliferation of reality TV shows that continue to blanket the airwaves. The history of reality TV is a complicated one, however, in part because no one seems to agree on what exactly defines the genre. In our regular closing feature, What’s Making History: Natalia commented on the controversy at the University of Louisville where the school’s president and other administrators wore stereotypical Mexican costumes to a staff Halloween party.Neil noted the record established on October 28 that the U.S. had gone 18,967 days without a president dying in office since John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. The previous record of 18,966 lasted between George Washington’s inauguration in 1789 and William Henry Harrison’s death in 1841.Niki discussed Paul Ryan’s ascension to the speakership and explained why Speakers of the House almost never make it to the Oval Office.

Senator Joseph McCarthy made it his mission to purge communists from American public life - but in April 1954 he was the subject of his own congressional hearing, after allegations that he had tried to blackmail the US Army into giving preferential treatment to one of his aides. Witness speaks to Norman Dorsen, one of the Army's junior legal advisors in the Army-McCarthy hearings. (Photo: American politician Joseph McCarthy, Republican senator from Wisconsin, testifies against the US Army during the Army-McCarthy hearings, Washington DC, 9 June, 1954. McCarthy stands before a map which charts communist activity in the United States. Credit: Getty Images)