"That the FBI has grave concerns should give one pause but should not be dispositive. The important thing is we want the Congress to be able to challenge executive branch determinations that things not be made public."

Said Morton Halperin, who — as the Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union — helped draft Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He's quoted in "Nunes memo centers on a 40-year-old law written to prevent surveillance abuses" (WaPo). The abuses of 40 years ago included the FBI's warrantless surveillance of American civil rights activists and Vietnam War protesters.

Halperin, who is no supporter of the House GOP, lauded the effort to use the provision, and said Congress should use it more often.

On Monday, the House panel voted along party lines to release the memo. In another vote, the Republican majority essentially blocked the public release of a Democratic memo that seeks to counter the GOP document.

Essentially blocked.... What does that mean?

I have trouble understanding why the Democrats have staked so much on resisting transparency. If I understand it correctly, the argument they offer us is: 1. There is a political motivation to release the formation, 2. The information might not be that accurate or complete, and 3. We should preserve and rely on the good reputation of the FBI.

There's the unstated argument — implicit in all 3 stated arguments — that Democrats have a political motivation to suppress the information.

As to stated argument #1: There's political motivation on both sides. The entire dispute is political. I don't see why this should make me lean toward getting less information. By the way, why hasn't this memo already leaked to the press? Or has it leaked to the press but the press only publishes leaked information that helps Democrats?

Stated argument #2 isn't a reason not to want to see the memo. If it is inaccurate or missing things, it will create pressure to correct and refine it. One thing is necessarily true: What's in the memo is what's in the memo. And that's a truth we need to look at and think and talk about. When X lies, we don't say, we don't need to know what X said, because it's a lie. We say I want to decide for myself how much of a liar X is. I want the truth about the lie.

Argument #3 is perverse. Trust the FBI? I remember the abuses of 40 years ago. If the FBI is trustworthy, the memo and the follow-on corrections and supplements to the memo will bolster our trust. If the FBI is not trustworthy, we should want to find out. Why isn't the Democratic Party on this side of the analysis as it was 40 years ago?

Whatever is in that "essentially blocked" Democratic Party memo, I assume it will come out in the discussion of the Nunes memo. Surely, the mainstream press will have that information and print it up for us.