My letter to Sen. Harris re: Barr's comment about maybe not revealing the report

[grumpyduck]

His comment about "maybe" not making the report available to the public really got under my skin. Here's my letter to Harris et al regarding this. Feel free to copy and send to your own MoCs.

Dear Senator Harris,

You may or may not be aware of this, but you and a few other Democratic MoCs have been getting rave reviews at Democratic Underground (www.democraticunderground.com), a chat room for Democrats who care deeply about what’s going on in our country. There’s a lot of support there for you.

One of the topics that just came up was Bill Barr’s comment that he might consider not making Bob Mueller’s full report open to the public. In my opinion, and that of many others, this would be a disgrace and a slap in the face to the American public, who have a right to know if the person holding the office of President of the United States colluded with a foreign power to attain that office. And it would deal a serious blow to the trust and faith we the people have – and want to have – in our government and on the people we elected to represent us.

Personally, I don’t care what the investigation reveals, and I also believe that many others don’t either. If he colluded with Russia, it’s a matter for Congress and for the courts. If he didn’t, then he didn’t. And if it’s somewhere in the middle, then who knows. But we’re paying for this investigation, and we’re sick and tired of hearing about it for two years, of reading about it, and of listening to those highly-paid “TV pundits,” (i.e., entertainers) who are making millions by inciting the American public to anger for the sake of TV ratings. I, and many others, want to get this over with. And keeping the report secret won’t help dissipate the anger that’s palpable all over the country: it’ll just increase it.

On the other hand, we all know it won’t be concealed forever anyway. It can’t be, not in this day and age. At some point, someone with the integrity and conscience of a Daniel Ellsberg will come forward, and someone with the integrity and conscience of a Bob Woodward or a Carl Bernstein will publish it. Using the phrase “national security” to keep the report secret is baloney and we all know it. If names need to be redacted to protect our intelligence assets, then fine, redact them. Nobody will care. But the gist of the report -- whether the person holding the office of President of the United States colluded with a foreign power -- needs to be revealed to the American public. We have a right to know that.

I strongly urge you to take all necessary steps to insure that this report is made available to the public. It’ll make some people happy and some others angry, but we’re already there anyway. We want this to go away.

Keep up the good work; we really appreciate it.

Best regards,

[still_one]

1. It is a great letter

[hlthe2b]

2. Good, but shouldn't you spell out Member of Congress?

That acronym was not immediately obvious, at least to me.

[grumpyduck]

3. She's an MoC

She probably got it. Or whoever reads the letter, anyway.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Nit to pick, just to prove that someone is reading your posts:

The Pentagon Papers were first leaked to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan.

Pentagon Papers, Leak

Leak

Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND in 1969. Now opposing the war, Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it. Ellsberg approached Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern, and others, but none were interested.

In February 1971, Ellsberg discussed the study with The New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication, but in-house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.

The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity. Street protests, political controversy, and lawsuits followed.

[grumpyduck]

6. You're right.

Thanks.

[akraven]

10. THAT, I'll never forget. Ever.

My daddy helped bring down a pResident. Very active in the Democratic Party since before I was born. He had some OSS/CIA experience.

I've never been so proud.

[Raster]

5. NO! I most certainly do care what the investigation reveals...

...and it isn't "just a matter for Congress and the courts." This matter concerns us all.

[grumpyduck]

7. I agree with you, but

this letter was to an MoC, so I wanted to keep it as focused as possible. Saying I totally want the report to show he's due for a trip to Gitmo (which I do) wouldn't have helped me make my case about it being public. If I wanted to say that, I would have written a different letter.

[Raster]

8. Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

[grumpyduck]

9. Welcome.