[Is this based on the Venona Papers?]
I haven’t read the book. Weinstein acknowledges Venona and other post-Soviet evidence in this edition which is revised from his 1978 book. I think the main argument against Hiss is based on Hiss’ lack of credibility as opposed to the credibility of Chambers. And the whole collection of evidence from the Hiss-Chambers slander lawsuit then the Hiss perjury trial.
Not so, Brad. As a matter of fact, the evidence presented by the testimony of Whittaker Chambers under oath turned out to be so absolutely compelling that not even a full court, all out ad hominem tarring and feathering by radio, television, newspapers and academia could save Alger Hiss from conviction, although it is a CRIME of major proportions that the only thing the nailed him for was perjury.
The evidence was overwhelming.
One striking example was the typewriter used by Alger Hiss to transcribe the documents given to him by Whittaker Chambers.
When the irrefutable proof was tendered, Alger Hiss could only say something like “I have no idea how Whittaker Chambers got into my house to use my typewriter...”
Even the jury tittered with laughter and incredulity at that line. People may be spoon fed feces and eat it, but...even the most gullible jurors knew exactly what it tasted like.