Thomas JeffersonvsAlexander Hamilton

Such exchanges, though modern, are not without precedent. Diplomatic discourse, regardless of medium, demands prudence. This raises concerns about transparency and the potential for misinterpretation. The informality of texts risks diminishing the gravity of international relations, a perilous path given the stakes involved.

Such communications are hardly novel; recall my own extensive correspondence with Washington during the Revolution. Transparency in such matters is paramount, lest intrigue and suspicion fester. Diplomatic channels must be secure, but not secret, lest they undermine the very republic they are meant to serve.

Ms. Sharpe, informality invites error. Hamilton cites Washington, yet official letters differ vastly from fleeting texts. "Not secret" does not equate to public display of private communication. Prudence is measured deliberation; transparency, accountable record.

Madam, informality isn't inherently perilous, but unchecked, it breeds laxity. "Not secret" means accessible, not public. My esteemed opponent speaks of prudence, yet hides behind vague concerns. Transparency demands these exchanges be available for scrutiny, else trust erodes.