[Sam Hill]

You call the blog site:

Stop Ann Coulter
http://blog.stopanncoulter.com/2006/03/29/treason.aspx

Crude?

It's sophisticated by the standards of the Coulter-bashers around here.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

LOL. All that's missing is the obligatory Rollie Fingers mustache and goatee scribbled on Ann's face.

[JTN]

Actually, Sam Hill, I didn't link to the Stop Ann Coulter web site, but I'm glad you did. Now anyone who wants to can click your link and read the original book review and decide for themselves whether Ann Coulter accurately portrayed the article in question. When they do, they will see this:

This book's two authors began their research with opposite assumptions. Thomas Mitchell, a former FBI agent, listened to some of the wiretaps. He writes, "I heard the panic, and, I was certain, the guilt in her voice."

His wife, Marcia Mitchell, reasoned that if Coplon had really been a spy, the government would have brought a much stronger case.

And it could have. At the end of the book, the authors explain why it did not.

Coplon was a spy. In the 1990s, the government declassified intercepts of coded messages from the mid-1940s between Russian agents describing her in unmistakable terms. But the intercepts could not be used in the trial because it would have blown the cover of the government's code-breaking. All of which explains why a half-baked case was presented with such insistence.

It was true that the Coplon case — and those against Hiss and the Rosenbergs — stigmatized left-wing views. But the case was not about that. It was about spying, and the spying, the authors conclude, was real.