As for the "entirely circumstantial" evidence, Coplon, a federal employee, was arrested while meeting with a Russian agent. Coplon had not taken the classified documents from her purse, and was not handing them to him. In another five minutes she probably would have, and of course the meeting itself was damning (but circumstantial) evidence. Yes, Soviet cables confirmed that Coplon was a Soviet agent — but for security reasons, the government had not used those cables as evidence.
Hmm...sound like the review DID say the evidence was circumstantial - although Ann was correct. The woman was there to hand over classified documents in her purse. That MAY qualify as circumstantial to a liberal, but most of us (particularly those of us with government clearances) realize you aren't supposed to be walking around with classified documents. When you carry those to a soviet spy, it is both circumstatial and damned obvious to anyone interested in the truth.
So here I was, a non-liberal favorably reviewing a book that exposes a communist spy, and I am accused of "refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union."
I think Ann was refering, not to the reviewer, but to the liberal Seattle paper and the liberals that defended her since the evidence was just that she took classified documents to a soviet spy.
BTW - I know nothing about the case except what I read in this post, so I could be making a bunch of factual errors.
Yes -- the evidence in the court case.
The woman was there to hand over classified documents in her purse. That MAY qualify as circumstantial to a liberal, but most of us (particularly those of us with government clearances) realize you aren't supposed to be walking around with classified documents. When you carry those to a soviet spy, it is both circumstatial and damned obvious to anyone interested in the truth.
According to the article in question, Coplon had a right to the documents in her purse. And the reviewer agrees with you; the meeting was both damning and circumstantial.
I think Ann was refering, not to the reviewer, but to the liberal Seattle paper and the liberals that defended her since the evidence was just that she took classified documents to a soviet spy.
Then why quote this particular review? It clearly does not support the point she is trying to make.
BTW - I know nothing about the case except what I read in this post, so I could be making a bunch of factual errors.
Fair enough. If you care to read about the case, you can do so here. For the record, that's a link to a U.S. gov't website.