Clooney admitted this film was a lie!!

I'm a little confused. What are you trying to point out by posting the text to something I just posted and linked you too?

This hearing, as well as several more by the SACB in no way throw Markward's testimony concerning Moss into question, nor to they suggest that Markward's statements about money she was paid were questionable. On this, and multiple hearings, the CP was denied in their attempts to discredit Markward. That is there in the texts plain as day.

I thought we had examined the claim of "full fledged FBI agent." It does not appear in the Signal Corps hearings you originally suggested it did appear in. Perhaps you can point me to where McCarthy does make such a reference. In the hearings we have been reviewing, McCarthy harps on Markward not being an informant and being an undercover agent. Where is the problem here? Additionally, even if McCarthy had introduced her as such, and then she wasn't in the most technical sense of the words, a full fledged agent, what does that have to do with her testimony, the case, or Moss? Too me, it really seems like the wrong thing to argue about.

[deleted]

Fair enough, what then was Mrs. Markward? Because the HUAC, McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover all considered her to an actual agent. Maybe not a full-fledged agent, but an agent. She was recruited and assigned to infiltrate and report. As far as I'm concerned, that's agent work. What does it matter how she's paid or how much? Should she have been given checks? Perhaps gone through agent training? Cause either of those would have lessened her chances at successfully infiltrating as she did. In any event, I don't know what bearing her status as an agent has on her testimony.

Now, if you wanted to question McCarthy, that's another matter. Show me where he makes the full-fledged claim and explain why Markward was not an actual agent (in terms other than money) and the argument will be complete.

So you're much older and a journalist. Who did (or do) you write for? I have noticed that you are not a fan of Mr. Stanton Evans, how come? Are you his age?

[deleted]

Television? Did you write for anyone ever? You sure are right about the slanted pro and con on McCarthy. He was a very polarizing figure. So what do you do now? Other than debate McCarthy that is?

So Hoover never referred to Mrs. Markward or acknowledged her employment? You might want to check out the Army Signal Corps hearings part 7, pages 320-330. Not only does Exhibit 18, a supplemental report from the FBI on Markward's information more than acknowledge her and her work for the FBI, the letter from J. Edgar Hoover discussed a few pages later to the Army was about Markward, her work for the FBI and her availability to testify concerning Moss. Additionally, there are the memo's too and from Hoover concerning the FBI's briefing of the Democratic members of the Committee on Markward and Moss. Hoover refers to Markward in all these (and probably more).

What does an IRS attack have to do with anything? You should know they come after money they think was not taxed regardless of who's it is.

[deleted]

You never know, maybe the IRS had a legitimate claim on some of that "expense money."

Hoover did not publicly admit much now though did he? I pointed you to several statements from Hoover and the FBI on Markward and her status. He more then admitted she was one of his. Just because he did not "protect" her from the IRS doesn't mean that he did not consider her an agent. What ever came of the IRS attack? Did Markward have to pay anything?

I too will probably never retire myself. What exactly does semi-retired constitute? Work whenever you feel like it? Sounds pretty good...

[deleted]

Wow, sounds cushy....and you gentlemen (and ladies I suppose) decide the fate of the company? Nice.

[deleted]

That's a good point. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I was incorrect in referring to the Exhibit 18 of part 7 of the Army Signal Corps hearings. Its actually referred to in part 8, page 321 if I'm not mistaken. From my experience, agents make reports to the FBI and informants are questioned by other agents (rather then actually submitting reports to the Bureau). Problem is, Exhibit 18 is missing from the records. Strange isn't it? If you know where to find it, please point me there. I will continue to search for it.

One last point before the weekend, I am still looking for information about McCarthy's "meeting." What I have found thus far is that Roy Cohn in his book "McCarthy" claims that the Senator was ill that day (and thus why he left). Personally, I don't think that's accurate, especially since Cohn makes several other errors in describing the Moss hearings.

Have a good weekend amigo.

[deleted]

I don't think its so much Cohn being dishonest. From reading his book, I gathered that he had written much of it from memory, rather than consulting and reprinting the transcripts and reports, etc.

As I understand it, Exhibit 18 and the letter from J. Edgar Hoover certainly constitute good evidence. Look over the transcript I pointed too.

How many people work for your company? A great deal? A few? Do you consider yourself to be a big business?

[deleted]

Who is this Harvey Matusow guy? I have never heard of him. When did he work for McCarthy? In all my readings of the transcripts and McCarthy's papers I have never heard him referenced.

If he worked for McCarthy, why did he testify before those other Committees? Also, when, and was what he said relevant? You could be the biggest lying dope in the world, but that doesn't make you automatically wrong the second you open your mouth.

Anyways, we've gotten a little off course in terms of Annie Lee Moss and our discussion about Markward....

[deleted]

Even in my readings of "anti"-McCarthy books I have not heard anything about him (or if I did, the mention must not have been memorable). One quick question about this "Job," if he was such a notorious liar, why believe what he wrote in his book? Is there any corroborating evidence (such as from the FBI, other books, etc) that he was paid to lie? From my research on the guy, the only thing backing "False Witness" is the book itself. The claims of being an FBI agent paid to lie and of being encouraged to lie by McCarthy and Cohn are his alone and stand on the book and little else. Did he testify before McCarthy's Committee? Again, I can find no record of him in either the McCarthy Committee records or the McCarthy papers.

We are indeed at an impasse....

I agree that McCarthy dropped the ball on what could have been a blockbuster case for him. I have not seen any solid evidence to suggest that McCarthy simply bolted, though you've stuck me on the meeting issue, as I still haven't been able to dig up anything on it (strange that no one, pro or anti, seems to know anything). As McCarthy was not particularly interested in questioning Moss personally (as he stated and then as he had Cohn do the leg work) but rather in her superiors (see, the Pentagon Review Board) I don't think the testimony supports the view that McCarthy ran, especially considering that the Democratic members of the Committee waited until McCarthy was gone to turn on Cohn. I find the Army's charges to be a reasonable answer to the non-pursuit of Moss. As far as Markward and the SACB, I still have not seen anything that throws her testimony in the Moss affair into to question, issues with payments and dues considered. In my readings, I have seen her referred to as an agent, additionally, the FBI certainly treated her like an agent and her testimony was considered both valuable and trustworthy by sources outside the bureau. Let me know what you find in your papers.

Sadly, I do not own any galleries...

[deleted]

"McCarthy perfectly timed his departure. He knew that the democrats would have to wait for his opening statements and initial round of questions."

What evidence is there to support this conclusion? The transcripts and documents indicate that the Democratic members of the Committee had been briefed by the FBI as to the strength of the case against Moss. While McCarthy knew all of this, he certainly did not know that Democrats on his Committee were going to turn on him. The record supports this. The Democratic members of the Committee were very much on McCarthy's side through many of the investigations. Senator McClellan was the chairman before and after McCarthy and continued much of his work after 1954. There is no evidence to support the claim that McCarthy knew the Democrats would turn on him and try to make him and the case against Moss look bad.

"... it was shocking that he would press the abort button and flee from the Moss hearing. But he timed his departure, and it was not the first time he aborted a cross examination when things were going badly for him."

Where is the evidence that this was "shocking?" Are there press accounts you could link too? From reading the Committee records, people came and went and hearings were held without McCarthy quite often without anyone thinking twice about it. Why should this be any different.

Now, while I don't have any evidence on the following, wouldn't it be possible that a reason to draw McCarthy away from the hearings was "created" by people who sought his downfall and then a deal struck with the Democrats to try to make him and his case look bad? Its just a hunch, and will have to stay that way until I can dig up the reason for McCarthy's departure, but think about it. You know the Democrats were trying to make McCarthy and his investigation look bad. The Army's charges were released the same day, if the Moss case had been correctly investigated (and no doubt, McCarthy would have seen too it should he have been there) it would have been very vindicating for McCarthy against the what the Army had claimed. Again, just what I think, I have no evidence to support the claim.

I'll look into the Matusow book, but I don't think many are giving anything he said much consideration. I haven't been able to find that he had much influence over the McCarthy Committee and investigations. What he may have done elsewhere is another topic for another debate, though I do wish to address one non-topic claim: can you point me to another hearing where McCarthy ran because things were going badly for him? You have claimed that it happened and I would like to know where.

I don't know about discounts, seems to me that many have become very stingy these days (but I hardly blame them).

[deleted]

I am aware of such tactics, but what "irrefutable" evidence did Moss's lawyer have? Something stronger than the FBI report? No, the record does not support your claim. The Democratic members of the Committee did not cite any new sources when they turned on Cohn. There is actually no evidence even referenced in their attacks. There is no evidence that McCarthy knew the Dems were planning on making him look bad. There is no reason to assume he ran. There was nothing false about the FBI's evidence. Note that they had the testimony of Markward and corroboration of said testimony in regards to Moss, but that was not all. The FBI had obtained copies of the Communists records Markward had pointed too, and they too confirmed Markward's testimony. This is all in the FBI memos, and not only that, it is also noted that the FBI had briefed the Dems on this, so they knew the case was definitely solid and definitely not mistaken identity (as they would later claim).

And as far as Kenyon goes, I hope you have a little more than just that he didn't cross examine her. The Tydings hearings can be found here:

http://ia341011.us.archive.org/1/items/statedepartmente195001unit/statedepartmente195001unit.pdf

This is where the questioning you are referring to can be found. As you may note, Hickenlooper was a member of the Committee and McCarthy was not. McCarthy was treated as just another witness and not permitted to cross examine anyone. As far as Dorothy Kenyon's life being ruined, I highly doubt that. Maybe she did miss an appointment to the U.N., but let us not forget that she was a highly successful judge before, during and after McCarthy. Did she lose her job because of McCarthy? No. And let us also not forget that the Tydings investigation as per resolution 231 was to examine whether or not there were security and loyalty risks in government (as McCarthy had claimed), not whether the individuals themselves were Communists or spies or what have you. Since McCarthy was never permitted to question Kenyon I think suggesting that he "ran" is a little far fetched. And while McCarthy did not present evidence of 28 front memberships, he did present evidence of 24. Remember, the State Department had recently noted that membership in even one Communist front group was something that should be considered in terms of appointments, etc. It was noted that Kenyon had not been asked about anything when the St. Dept. recommended her appointment. That, more than anything else, was McCarthy's point.

I'll try to get my hands of both those books. Thank the maker for Amazon.com right?

[deleted]

"There was a statement released by Moss' attorney before the hearing commenced, which was distributed to members of the committee and the press. You, of course, will not find that released statement "mentioned" in the testimony. Indeed, no pre-hearing statements/releases are included in any transcripts. But it is a fact. It included a declaration of his client's innocence and a denial of Moss ever belonging to any communist organization."

So what? Where is the evidence? The Democrats choosing the believe the denial of the accused over real solid evidence only shows their true intentions: to damage McCarthy and his investigation. Again, you have shown no evidence that McCarthy ran. Do I need to link to the transcript again and quote passages? The Democrats did nothing to indicate their plans to turn on McCarthy (and the evidence) until McCarthy had left.

As far as her true identity. Lets think, the woman Markward identified was named Annie Lee Moss lived at the same address Mrs. Moss later would admit she had lived and received the "Daily Worker" at, worked in the same jobs, had the same roommate and so on. The CP records in possession of the FBI confirmed this. Plus, there were additional witnesses ready to corroborate Markward's testimony. What is this "true identity" nonsense?

As far as the Democrats supporting anything initially, the Democrats, as you will note, didn't say anything at all until McCarthy had left, and then not much of anything for several more pages of transcript.

"Qustion: Who charged Keynon with belonging to communist clubs or organizations?"

Yes, McCarthy charged Kenyon with membership in front groups, as an indictment of the State Department. As you will notice in the Hickenlooper questioning, Kenyon has some selective amnesia concerning her membership in a great deal of these groups.

What does it matter what Kenyon says? The denial of the accused is not convincing evidence.

"Per ducking the cross-examination, it speaks for itself. Per McCarthy was "never permitted to question" Keynon, that is pure BS."

McCarthy was not permitted cross examination of any witnesses, end of story. I welcome you to point me to anywhere in the Tydings transcript where he was given that opportunity, you won't find it. He was not a member of the Committee and was not granted privileges as such.

"...some of the clubs or organizations that he claimed Keynon belonged to were, in fact, clubs or names that she simply lent her name to."

The point I made last post was that the State Department had not even bothered to deal with the situation. This was an indictment and investigation of the State Department, or at least it was supposed to be. The State Department had noted that membership in even one group (even just lending one's name) should raise flags. Why wasn't this done in Kenyon's place?

Like I said, Kenyon didn't lose her job and go to jail. Maybe she didn't get appointed to any political positions, but then again, maybe she shouldn't have lent her name to groups she didn't know anything about.

[deleted]

I actually already have the book, and many many others on the FBI, and it seems to me that this Mr. Lamphere has an opinion quite different from the FBI director Mr. Hoover concerning Communist infiltration. Do not forget, McCarthy named ten people who would later appear in the Venona decryptions.

Lets back up a little here.

First of all, show me evidence, any evidence at all to indicate that McCarthy ran from the Moss hearing.

http://ia311341.us.archive.org/2/items/armysignalcorpss10unit/armysignalcorpss10unit.pdf

The Moss testimony begins on page 443.

Show me evidence that McCarthy knew the Democrats were going to try to turn on him.

What is documented is the FBI had thoroughly briefed Senator Jackson on the Moss case, especially that it was not a case of mistaken identity. FBI memos further indicate that Senator Jackson passed on this information to the other Democratic members of the Committee and also, that he agreed with the FBI's assessment of the case.

What is not documented is anything you have claimed so far. Markward was correct in her naming of Moss, and McCarthy was correct to have the Committee look into her promotion. What I do not know, is why McCarthy left. I have gotten some speculation from several authors and researchers, but no one seems to know of any documentation. The general consensus I have reached is that McCarthy had some sort of meeting concerning his response to the just released charges of the Army. Can you point me to the source of the claim that some reporters followed him back to his office?

"Turn your question around: Why would McCarthy have stayed if he knew he was going to be embarrassed on national TV?"

First of all, how do you know that McCarthy was aware the Dems were out for blood? And second of all, embarrassed how? Jackson, McClellan and Symington ignored the evidence in their televised "clearing" of Annie Lee Moss. No evidence is pointed too by the Democrats! They simply begin to doubt a case they knew to be strong. That is the real question. What kind of back room deal had they made to get them to turn on McCarthy like that?

As far as Kenyon is concerned, the State Department noted that, even if the group was later found to be a front group and the person in question then dropped out, even one time, that was still something that had to be considered. By Kenyon's own mouth it was confirmed that the State Department took no action when it should have.

And I have not seen evidence that McCarthy lied. Kenyon pulls the old "I'm sorry I don't recall," and that means McCarthy was wrong? Again, what lies did he tell about Kenyon? How did this "damage" her?

"It's BS to claim he was never "given that opportunity.""

You're going to have to do better then simply calling BS. I pointed you to the transcript. Unless you can prove me wrong your call of BS means little. And you are wrong about McCarthy requesting an opportunity to question witnesses. That he did too and Committee members did on his behalf. He was denied such an opportunity.

"He appeared in front of the Tydings Committee and accused people of being commmunists or having communist ties. He was not barred from appearing at the Tydings Committee's proceedings...He did not question or challenge Keynon's comments about him being a liar. Fact: he ducked any confrontation with her."

Great, then you should be able to point me to a place in the transcript where McCarthy was offered a chance to cross-examine Mrs. Kenyon and said he would rather not. Show me evidence McCarthy ducked confrontation. Of course he was part of the Committee's proceedings, he was the star witness! But he was not a member of the Committee itself.

[deleted]

"These written statements on behalf of those testifying were released before the hearings commenced..."

So you have in your possession written statements that indicate that the Democrats were planning on turning on McCarthy? Statements that prove McCarthy knew the Democrats were going to try to shoot down his case? I highly doubt such convenient statements exist, but I would love to see what you have.

What is your source that McCarthy "went back to his office?" I would like to see it. Again, the "reporters follwing him" tale seems very convenient as well.

"Thus, you can choose to ignore the fact that democrats, republicans and members of the press possessed this information before the hearing(s) began. But the fact is that it was common practice for the accused to begin their defense days---even weeks---before they appeared in front of the committee(s)."

Alright, what does it matter that Moss's lawyer claimed she was innocent? What does it matter if these claims were circulated? Are the denials of the accused and the lawyer of the accused enough to clear someone? Why don't you try that in court and let me know how that goes. McCarthy had documented evidence of his claims, Moss had nothing of the sort, and you have presented nothing of the sort either.

"Why would McCarthy have stayed if he knew he was going to be embarrassed on national TV?"

If the case was as strong as McCarthy (and the FBI) believed it to be, why stay? Especially if there was something else at hand that needed to be dealt with. You have shown no evidence that McCarthy knew the Democrats were going to try to embarrass him, therefore your conclusion that he ran on these grounds holds no water.

"The democrats, in effect, challenged McCarthy's conclusions and statements based on his questionable "evidence" and accusations---statements he had made."

An FBI memo from Lou Nichols begs to differ. Nichols indicates in a memo written on February 24th, the day after the Markward testimony, that he had briefed Senator Jackson and Robert Kennedy on the strengths of the case, and especially that it was not a case of mistaken identity. Nichols made them aware that the FBI had two witnesses to corroborate Markward and also had copies of the CP records Markward had referred to. The memo further indicates that Jackson had said he believed the case to be good. Yet strangely, Senator Jackson, and the rest of the Democrats he had briefed, acted as if the case wasn't solid. In so doing, they were challenging not only McCarthy, but the FBI. The conclusions weren't just McCarthy's. Note, Moss was suspended by the Army before, but the suspension was reversed by the Pentagon Review Board. Consequently, do you know what happened to Moss after McCarthy?

"That's another good one...McCarthy didn't need "an invitation" to attend the hearings. The hearings were open to any member of Congress or Senate. Or did you not know that simple fact? As a member of the Senate, McCarthy could have attended every day. He was not barred from attending the hearngs. And we know that McCarthy spoke out in the press about the hearings."

I am not disagreeing that McCarthy did not attend the hearings or make statements to the press concerning them. But he was not one of the five Subcommittee members, he was a witness. The Tydings hearings can be found here:

http://ia341010.us.archive.org/1/items/statedepartmente195001unit/statedepartmente195001unit.pdf

On pages 256-257 Senator Hickenlooper suggests that McCarthy be permitted question a witness. Tydings not only denies him this, he states that the witness, Philip Jessup, should question McCarthy. A little later, Tydings spells out the hearing-long questioning ban for McCarthy. Hickenlooper asks if McCarthy will be permitted to question other witnesses, to which Tydings responds that it will require a Subcommittee vote. In essence, Tydings was warning Senators Hickenlooper and Lodge that they would be outvoted in such matters, as they were the minority party. This warning would quell any future requests on McCarthy's behalf.

As far as McCarthy being a liar, you may want to check out his testimony at the Tydings hearings. His information concerning Kenyon begins on page 17, but the opening remarks start right at page 1. McCarthy was interrupted, shouted down and cut off throughout his time testifying before Tydings. I think that may have a little more to do with his not presenting of information on questionable group membership, rather than him not having it at all.

Again I ask: Show me evidence McCarthy ducked confrontation with Kenyon.

[deleted]

"You'll find all the "evidence" you need in the New York Times, which published an editorial supporting Kenyon...Thus, after embellishing the list of organizations, failing to provide evidence and ducking the Keynon cross examination..."

I have provided you with evidence that McCarthy was not permitted to cross examine any of the witnesses, thus he "ducked" nothing. I'll again refer to the Tydings hearings. On pages 256-57 Senator Tydings makes it clear that Hickenlooper's request that McCarthy be permitted to cross examine the witnesses was never going to happen, as the Subcommittee would have to vote in favor of such a motion and the majority was clearly against it. On page 442, McCarthy was forbidden to question Dr. Lattimore. On page 479 Tydings again denies McCarthy a chance at cross examination. In each case, Senator Hickenlooper had requested that McCarthy conduct the cross examination, as he had made the charges and was more familiar with the material.

And as far as irrefutable evidence, McCarthy had documentation of Kenyon's membership in questionable groups, there was no embellishment involved. As I pointed out, McCarthy was never given the opportunity to present his case for all 28 groups, do to constant interruption and badgering. This is spelled out clearly in the in the first 72 pages of testimony. And since McCarthy did not address all 28 groups, Senator Hickenlooper, in his cross examination of Kenyon covered the remainder (see pages 188-208).

Now, on McCarthy returning to his office, you're going to have to point me to specific accounts if you know of them. I have not been able to dig up anything on the matter in the papers archives in a general search. Course, I don't know what article I'm looking for though, so if you have a specific one in mind, point me too it.

"I have a copy of the original statement as preapared and read by Moss' lawyer. As I have written, this statement, which was released and distributed to members of the committee and the press, denies all of McCarthy's charges and questions his character. Given the fact that McCarthy was not successful in getting Moss to reveal any substantial and damaging information to support his charges, it is clear that the democrats had a clear opening to attack McCarthy's "evidence" or accusations."

So you have no evidence that McCarthy knew the Democrats were going to turn on him. Again, show me any case, any case at all, where the denial of the accused (or a denial from the lawyer of the accused) and attacks on the prosecution are enough to clear someone. You won't find such a scenario. McCarthy had good solid evidence. Moss had none.

"The question is, Why did McCarthy bolt from the cross examination?"

I don't think so. The real question is why did the Democratic members of the Committee turn on good evidence?

"If it wasn't a case of "mistaken identity" and McCarthy had "irrefutable evidence," then why did McCarthy choose to bolt the cross examination so soon?"

The answer is the same answer I have given. McCarthy had expressed little interest in the testimony of Moss (see the previous hearings); he directed someone else to handle the questioning (as the Pentagon Review Board was his real interest); the case was solid, and McCarthy believed his fellow Committee members knew so; and he had a very pressing PR nightmare staring him in the face. Since the case was good, and McCarthy knew the rest of the Committee had been briefed as such, if he had somewhere else to be, he didn't need to stay.

What is your evidence he bolted? Direct me to articles that prove he had no important meeting. What is your evidence that the Moss case was not strong? And I'm not talking about a press release by the accused, I'm talking about solid documentation, such as McCarthy had against Moss.

[deleted]

Lets look back for a moment at some of the previous posts:

My initial claim: "McCarthy was treated as just another witness and not permitted to cross examine anyone."

Your response: "Per McCarthy was "never permitted to question" Keynon, that is pure BS. McCarthy chose not to appear at the cross-examination of Keynon or to further his case because he knew he would face severe additional criticism and scorn."

My response: "McCarthy was not permitted cross examination of any witnesses, end of story. I welcome you to point me to anywhere in the Tydings transcript where he was given that opportunity, you won't find it. He was not a member of the Committee and was not granted privileges as such."

Your response: "It's BS to claim he was never "given that opportunity." You know it and everyone who reads this knows it. As the leading Red hunter, he could have easily requested the opportunity to question Keynon. He did not."

My response: On pages 256-257 Senator Hickenlooper suggests that McCarthy be permitted to question a witness. Tydings not only denies him this...A little later, Tydings spells out the hearing-long questioning ban for McCarthy.

Your response: "...[McCarthy] conveniently "forgot" about Keynon and never appeared at the cross examination. He ducked it.

My response in the last post was to note places in the Tydings hearings which confirmed my initial claim: McCarthy was not permitted to cross-examine any witnesses at the Tydings hearings as per Tydings and the Democratic majority on the Committee. Period.

Your response: "You, again, are missing the mark entirely as it relates to the one person we are discussing: Dorothy Keynon."

I have not missed the mark. McCarthy was not permitted to cross-examine Kenyon, or any other witness, therefore your claim that he "ducked" and "ran" is incorrect.

"That is pure BS. He had ample time to both present and submitt documentation or evidence for all 28 organizations. He did not have the "evidence" he claimed to possess. Period. He lied."

The transcripts tell a different story. I pointed you to the pages which backed my claims. McCarthy was constantly interrupted and badgered. His presentation on Kenyon, pages 32-72 contains several episodes in which Tydings interrupted McCarthy's presentation to argue with him about case #14 presented in front of the Senate. Its all there. There was not ample time, and either way, the evidence of the 28 groups was there, just as McCarthy said, although it would be Hickenlooper who made sure to question Kenyon about the remaining group memberships. Its all there in the transcripts, pages 188-208.

Troll eh? I'm not trying to dodge anything here, I just don't know what I'm looking for exactly. Specific articles would be helpful until I can get to a library that has back issues on microfilm. For now I am reserved to searching the internet databases of the two papers, and that search has yielded little.

"The issue is the fact that Moss' lawyer distributed a denial of McCarthy's charges and an attack against McCarthy prior to beginning of the Moss hearing. This gave the democrats the ammo they needed to begin questioning the validity of McCarthy's charges."

A denial was better ammo than the FBI briefing they had received? As I have noted, it was not only McCarthy's charges they were bucking, it was the FBI. The FBI was certain it was not mistaken identity. I have presented irrefutable evidence. The Markward testimony, the corroborating witnesses, the CP documents in the possession of the FBI and the FBI memo all point to a strong case. What do we have on your side? Denials by Moss and her lawyer, attacks on McCarthy and McCarthy "looking nervous." Not much to go on really. So let me get this straight, you're willing to take the lawyer of the accused over the evidence of the FBI? Over sworn testimony? And with nothing backing up the denial except a few attacks on McCarthy's character? You're going to have explain the reasoning on that one, cause I don't see it.

[deleted]

Hmmm, you're changing your tune here.

I was and have been addressing your claim that McCarthy ducked and ran from questioning Kenyon, which you summed up here:

"Per McCarthy was "never permitted to question" Keynon, that is pure BS. McCarthy chose not to appear at the cross-examination of Keynon or to further his case because he knew he would face severe additional criticism and scorn."

I have answered and demonstrated that the claim is false. Your answer has been to change your position to this:

"Thus, unless you can show me where he defended himself against Keynon's stinging accusations and damaging statements regarding McCarthy and his flawed character, you have no evidence to support your contention that he did not duck any confrontation with Keynon."

Again, I have addressed and answered your previous claim. McCarthy was not permitted to cross-examine any witnesses during the Tydings hearings. Period. Therefore he ducked and ran from nothing during the hearings. In fact, it seems from reading Tydings remarks that if anything, the Committee majority ran from McCarthy in terms of him being permitted to cross examine witnesses.

Now, if you would like me to find some press release where McCarthy says,"Dorothy Kenyon is wrong about me," in reference to any claims she may have made concerning his character, I shall. You should note, that it was normal for witnesses (mainly what we shall call hostile witnesses) to make such claims about McCarthy, the Committee and the investigations. I do not see what bearing this has. What does it matter what Kenyon says about her accuser? McCarthy was interested in evidence, and making claims about one's accuser is not evidence. Should McCarthy have answered every witness who ever called him a liar and his investigations a sham? Should he have made sure the press published these rebuttals? Personally, I don't think it matters.

"This has absolutely no significance or bearing or impact whatsoever with respect to submitting evidence."

Alright, maybe you're right, but as you can note on pages 188-208 Senator Hickenlooper, in his questioning of Kenyon, addresses the groups McCarthy didn't get too in his presentation. And as you will note on pages 36-72, McCarthy tried to stay on track but Tydings constantly changed the subject.

"He did not have evidence to support all his accusations or claims against Keynon."

I think he did, and beyond that, there were additional group memberships that could have been cited (running the total to about 31 I believe).

"...the democrats may have been influenced by Moss' answers and her attorney's statement released before the hearing..."

Great, what evidence? I have heard nothing referred to in Moss's defense aside from this denial by her lawyer. Where is the evidence? And again I ask, was the denial better than the solid case the FBI had prepared?

I take Ritchie with a grain of salt. Consider this:

"Her case contrasts with that of another African American woman, Doris Walters Powell, whom McCarthy erroneously pegged as a communist, drove from her government job, and crowed about to the press, but never brought to a public hearing."

This is a complete misrepresentation. Powell's testimony can be found here:

http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.pdf

He did not erroneously peg her as anything. There was sworn testimony to the effect, as well as her admittance it during her testimony. McCarthy did not drive her from her job, the Army suspended her when she took the Fifth before the Committee, and the press coverage is addressed in the hearings as well. Ritchie has completely misrepresented this and other situations to prove his prejudices about McCarthy.

[deleted]

I have already demonstrated that McCarthy was not permitted to cross examine any witnesses during the Tydings hearings. At no point did I claim he was barred from the proceedings.

Your initial claim was that McCarthy ducked confronting Kenyon by passing on cross examination: "But you won't find McCarthy in the testimony conducting the all-important cross-examination. He ducked that confrontation and left it up to Hickenlooper..."

And then again: "Per ducking the cross-examination, it speaks for itself. Per McCarthy was "never permitted to question" Keynon, that is pure BS. McCarthy chose not to appear at the cross-examination of Keynon or to further his case because he knew he would face severe additional criticism and scorn."

"That is why he chose to duck the cross-examination. No one "prevented him"; he chose to run away from a confrontation with Keynon."

And Again: "It's BS to claim he was never "given that opportunity." You know it and everyone who reads this knows it. As the leading Red hunter, he could have easily requested the opportunity to question Keynon. He did not."

And on and on. You are wrong in this respect. McCarthy ducked no confrontation with Kenyon at the hearings. And one other things, let me see if I have this straight. You are saying that since McCarthy did not answer Kenyon's claims about his character, they must be true? That is the sorriest logic I have ever heard. Its a fact that many many witnesses made similar claims about McCarthy's character and the nature of the investigations, there were many who were probably more high profile than Kenyon. McCarthy did not answer these "claims" either, are they all true?

Interestingly enough, McCarthy does address this subject during the questioning of Mrs. Powell. While her attorney was complaining about the Press's coverage of Powell, McCarthy notes that he does not respond to everything said about him that he doesn't like, further adding that if he spent all his time dealing with such claims nothing would ever be accomplished. That makes far more sense as the reason McCarthy did not address Kenyon's claims.

And I highly doubt McCarthy's political life was at stake or even damaged by what Kenyon said about him or however the press reacted. This was just the beginning of his political career. It sure doesn't seem like it was wrecked when he was made chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

I have already demonstrated that the Hickenlooper cross-examination covers the groups McCarthy did not. And there were other groups, more then the "embellished" 28 from McCarthy. And yes, McCarthy was aware that Kenyon resigned once the Attorney General made the designation, that wasn't the point. McCarthy notes on page 39 of the Tydings hearings that participation in even one front group, in any way shape or form, regardless of when the designation is made is grounds for investigation. This is why McCarthy referred to Kenyon as a "security-risk" and why Kenyon was questioned as to the State Department's actions in regards to these memberships. This point is echoed several times throughout the hearings, for some reason Tydings, and future historians have ignored this.

As far as Ritchie's claims, what does it matter that Powell was never called to a public hearing? McCarthy was not investigating Powell, she was a witness in a larger investigation. And I'll state again, McCarthy did not erroneously peg Powell as anything, nor did he drive her from her job. You are only noting the first time Mrs. Powell appeared before McCarthy. A little further down, page 1672 to be exact, Mrs. Powell again appears before the Subcommittee. Here she takes the Fifth as to the Communist membership she was skirting around in the section you referred to. This probably had a little more to do with her firing. And as you should note, there was sworn testimony that Powell did indeed take those files.

Furthermore, whatever point Ritchie is trying to make with non-pressing of perjury charges really makes no sense. While Venona may prove the guilt of the witnesses, how was McCarthy supposed to know, he did not have access to the Venona files? And besides that, McCarthy sent many perjury cases to the Justice Department, they were rarely acted upon. Perhaps it would avail Mr. Ritchie to read the Army Signal Corps transcripts again. As far as the issue with Coleman, there was far more too it than just a carpool ride. Mr. Ritchie is blatantly belittling the investigation by making it look as if it was a quarrel over matters as trivial as who rode in a car with whom.

[deleted]

"We know that he wasn't allowed to cross examine anyone during Tydings. You keep bringing up a completely irrelevant, dead point. My earlier statements..."

If we all know it, then why did you deny it?

"He could have attended the hearings and challenged her accusations and charges against him."

This also is incorrect. McCarthy was a witness in front of the Committee and not a member, he answered when called upon, and in the case of Kenyon, he gave his information and she responded. McCarthy was not permitted to cross examine her, or respond in kind to her appearance.

Again, I call upon your poorly reasoned argument that somehow, since he did not address a claim she made, it was true. I cited McCarthy's reasoning for not responding to all the attacks against him, have you no response other than to stick by the above?

"I am not "wrong" in any respect. He was allowed to speak freely. His liberties were not taken away from him. What BS you're peddling."

Alright, prove it. I have linked you to the Tydings hearings, and you claim to have read them "cover to cover," put up. Show me the evidence that backs your claims.

"Keynon was the beginning of the end for McCarthy... a bumpy, downhill road after he failed to defend himself from her damaging charges of embellishing and lying. The general public began to question his integrity and honesty, and his character."

The beginning of the end eh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Seems his political career was hardly damaged by anything Kenyon said, as he would go on to lead one of the most powerful Subcommittees. Additionally, remind me again what happened to Tydings after these hearings? How did his political career fair?

I pointed you to the pages in which Hickenlooper questioned Kenyon. Do I need to copy and paste the whole 20 pages here?

"Had the press covered the hearing, there is a chance she would have not lost her job."

Says who? The Army had a policy of firing or suspending employees who took the Fifth concerning CP membership or activities.

"And there was a denial by Powell."

Yeah, try that in any court. Again, the denial of the accused alone is not enough to clear anyone. Where is the evidence? There was sworn testimony from several witnesses, and then the dancing around the issue before later taking the Fifth by Powell. If the accusations were not true, she should have stuck by her denials instead of deciding to take the Fifth.

[deleted]

I can't believe that you two stubborn idiots have been beating this issue to death for almost TWO YEARS!!! Why don't you both agree to disagree, and then move on? You CAN'T resolve your differences, you're polarized!

"You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

[deleted]

Hey, pal, THIS is not going to lead to a two year stand-off, is it? I'll take cyanide before THAT happens!! It's MY resume, I can put ANYTHING on it that I want! Produced, un-produced. Look, there are such things as has-beens, and never-wasses. I fall into the latter category. What's YOUR story?

"You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

[deleted]

Promise?

"You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

[deleted]