[JCG]

My personal opinion of the 205 vs. 57 issue is that McCarthy meant to say 57, which he clearly did say at Reno, which was recorded, and from which he read the transcription into the record.

It appears that you have full access to the Congressional Record.
Did McCarthy ever double-back and insert an admission into the
record that, in fact, no recording of the Wheeling speech existed?

America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8Mb File Here (Requires RealPlayer)

Who is Steve Emerson?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It appears that you have full access to the Congressional Record.

I just went to a Federal Depository Library a number of years ago and copied some sections I thought were of interest.

Did McCarthy ever double-back and insert an admission into the record that, in fact, no recording of the Wheeling speech existed?

I wouldn't know. The Record is, as of yet, not searchable. He claimed there was a recording, stated that he was reading from a recording of his speech in Nevada, and claimed the speeches were essentially identical. If you've ever heard a stump speech, you'll know they can vary a little here and a little there, but they are essentially the same speech given many times. I've little doubt the speech in Wheeling was close to identical to the one in Reno he read into the Record. As I said, he may have said 205 in a moment of confusion in Wheeling (though I doubt it - I think it more likely the reporters were confusing his mention of the 205 in the Byrnes Letter he reads, and the 57 he claims he has), but he certainly meant to say 57. He says this over, and over, and over again, and he said 57 before the newspapers even picked up on the 205 controversy.