While your approach seems to be the rational way to go about it, it's simply impractical.
Officials constantly lie under oath(legalese and national security), and admit to wrongdoings only when they are exposed, and there's absolutely nowhere for them to go. When it is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then they come forward.
Following this kind of pattern, there is no way to have constructive debate. Besides, the government releasing information themselves is a political dead-end.(hint: there's a difference between suspecting(conspiracy theories, tin foil hats etc) and knowing.)
Officials constantly lie under oath(legalese and national security), and admit to wrongdoings only when they are exposed, and there's absolutely nowhere for them to go. When it is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then they come forward.
Following this kind of pattern, there is no way to have constructive debate. Besides, the government releasing information themselves is a political dead-end.(hint: there's a difference between suspecting(conspiracy theories, tin foil hats etc) and knowing.)