[rlmorel]

"...I think the main argument against Hiss is based on Hiss’ lack of credibility as opposed to the credibility of Chambers..."

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.

[Brad from Tennessee]

I thought that was what I said. Chambers was believed because he was an authentic defector. Hiss wasn't believed because he kept inventing implausible alibis.

A few years ago I read the biography “Whittaker Chambers” by Sam Tanenhaus. Tanenhaus is listed as “writer at large” for the New York Times. I assume he is a liberal. But I thought his book was very objective and leaves no doubt that all of Chambers revelations were true. Tanenhaus won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction.