I just read Caitlin Johnstone's post: "Biggest Nunes Memo Revelations Have Little to Do With its Content."
Here's my take on her take.It's time we get beyond the "revelation" stage. Frankly, the whole story/issue of Russiagate is ancient history in terms of deep-state tactics. Everyone in the know knows that full well. We must stop beating the minutia to death. We must stop missing the forest for the trees. We must see and state the moments that if allowed to slip by, set things back years and often multiple decades at the very least.
It's true that it's a Memo that requires substantiating. That's why I've asked: What did the judge know, when did he/she know it, and what questions did the judge ask and receive? Is the FISA court system at all trustworthy? I've always opposed it and still do, because it is designed to allow flagrant abuses. That whole system was an end-run around the US Constitution under the guise of "National Security" and "State Secrets" and the People's need to know for a fully functioning democracy under a fully informed citizenry be damned.
If the system is fixed just for this one issue (alleged Russian government/Putin-Trump illegal collusion), it will stick if the youth make it stick. The fix will be a precedent that they will adhere to or not. It's a golden opportunity that could well be squandered: America's pattern.
The pattern of bringing people and countries down based upon false propaganda can continue or be stopped.
So, I disagree with Caitlin for that reason. She's right that the blatant spinning is revealing, but she's quite wrong that it's THE STORY if that's her suggestion (it seems it).
She's right that hypocrisy has been the norm, but she's wrong about or underestimating the potential this situation offers. In fact, I'll argue that as well-intentioned as she is, and she is well-intentioned, she's inadvertently aiding the enemies of truth by taking the approach she is.
We get tired of trying to raise the standards. She pointed to times when standards were higher, but that was often a façade. Civility and collegiality was a cover for the real deep state running the show for themselves, not the People, not the people who voted for them other than those in on the take, the haul, the booty.
As to the timing of the FISA renewal versus the Memo, Caitlin is understandably reading way too much into that. Firstly, both the Republicans and Democrats mostly think that the FISA system can be held to account. I disagree, but it's not simply that they are all on the same deep-state side (though they're corporatists for the most part). Secondly and more importantly is that Nunes was run off (ran scared and ducked out over nonsense) and only came back into the fray recently. The idea of hammering on the Dossier didn't occur to them all until relatively recently. I know, because I wrote that exact thing ought to be the focus and did so not that long ago. In fact, Nunes rushed the Memo issue to the fore just in the nick of time, as far as I'm concerned.
Caitlin is falsely imagining that those powers that be are actually as sharp as she is.
To Caitlin's credit, she properly defines the deep state. It is the plutocracy telling elected officials, bureaucrats, and many CEO's of large corporations what to do or else. Historically, they've been able to make the "or else" stick enough to make their system (the establishment) work for them against the People.
Using mass-media censorship is one of their biggest tools. Another is spreading lies and nonsense via that same mass media.
The single most important thing about this snapshot in time Caitlin has addressed is focusing in on exactly what's broken, how to fix it, and then never taking our eyes off the ball but rather knocking it out of the park in a way that's undoable, not reversible.
We must turn the current power structure totally on its head or utterly fail.
The question has been whether to do that from inside the system or without.
The question has been whether to do things in tiny incremental steps (always easily reversed) or in huge, sweeping transformations.
The question has been whether to compromise core principles to supposedly gain the middle (shifting to the middle rather than dragging the middle into the light).
The Bernie Sanders Movement was/is reform from within, don't be seen as overreaching, slowly move the center in a mixed direction rather than focusing on the economic-power structure that impacts everyone regardless of the various single-issue issues (other issues). To top it off, Bernie spews the Russiagate narrative of the Clinton-wing of the corporatist Democratic Party. It's a lack of focus, a lack of properly setting the priorities. It's putting the cart before the horse, as the People lack the transparency to see clearly on the very issues concerning which they think they hate Russia and Putin. Fix the economy first via real democracy, then worry about the "social" and "cultural" issues. You'll have access to vastly more free and open information and can vote for proper research, etc., designed to get to the whole truth no matter what.
More of why to focus on the economic system as the main focus first is that the vast majority of people are struggling because of the plutocratic system. All other ideological issues are different matters that divide. Yes, there are financially poor people who are totally duped by the plutocrats preaching economic nonsense to do just that, dupe the masses. However, by focusing on the one issue, cutting through that will be that much easier.
The second most important issue is foreign policy (which is also military policy, as the military is under foreign: is a subset). Foreign policy will be fixed when the domestic economic system is fixed: when the plutocracy is completely ended/replaced by real democracy.
That's all. It's not complicated. It just takes focus to start with. Without focus, forget it. We're doomed.