Democracy survives on full disclosure. Recently, I was compelled to respond to comments made by Margaret Hoover on her Firing Line facebook page with the following question: "Margaret, you've asked multiple guests whether certain actions, such as asking Congressman Eric Swalwell whether his calling out Trump for conflict of interest, and, Stacey Abrams whether contesting the election, don't threaten public confidence in (essence) the honesty and integrity of government. I ask, then, are you implying that it's better for the preservation of our democratic Republic to let abuses and violations of the rule of law and societal norms go unnoticed and unattended to? Would that not more quickly lead to the deterioration of the rule of law, and, ultimately to the loss of public confidence in the legitimacy of government, than confronting and challenging such corruption? If the public, from which all power is drawn, isn't aware of the infractions against its body politic, who will confront and challenge such infractions? Have we not seen the negative consequences of Congress policing itself, in the practice of using taxpayer money to silence the victims of congressional sexual predators; as merely one example? What average person will curb their own self-rewarding behavior or aggression against others as long as they continue to reap rewards from it? Isn't reporting a crime, or suspected crime, the first step to effective law enforcement?" I further contend that democracy cannot exist without the public being fully informed of all that happens which threatens the rule of law, as democracy is dependent upon the rule of law, the two are inseparable. As it is, the American People know far too little about all that goes on in the running of our government, and that has set this nation back tremendously. Lack of full disclosure is a national security threat, because, without full disclosure, the People of the United States cannot provide 'informed consent' to be governed.