these agencies what impact it will have on the investigation or their ability to recruit sources in the future. And I think the Department said it quite all too accurately by calling that extraordinarily reckless.
Our understanding from the Department of Justice is that they concur that there are serious factual inaccuracies in the memo that you are about to vote to release to the public. And I, for one, would like to hear them have the opportunity, along with the Bureau, to come in and share with us their views on it. And that is really the essence of this secondary motion.
With that, I yield back.
MR. SWALWELL: And reclaiming my time --
THE CHAIRMAN: Without objection --
MR. SWALWELL: Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. I have a minute left.
To Mr. Schiff's point, I would hope that our colleagues, before voting to release this to the public, would read the minority’s memo, which goes to painstaking length to paint a full picture of the inaccuracies that were laid out in the majority's memo.
And, also, you get the sense when you read the minority memo that the majority hasn't read almost most of the materials that it is commenting on. It is essentially releasing to the public a book review on a book it has not read, which I think is irresponsible.
And so I support the ranking member‘s motion that we first have an independent agency, whether it is DOJ or another inspector general, look at these highly sensitive materials before we recklessly release them to the public.
THE CHAIRMAN: Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
UNCLASSIFIED
