The DOJ isn't part of the Judiciary branch, it's part of the Executive.

> FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door

Most of the NSA is active duty service members and former military. Did you mean other three letter agencies, excluding the most powerful one dealing with surveillance?

> Any judge that attempts to interfere with Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system

The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming?

Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.

▲

ux266478 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Given the sentence immediately following the revolving door metaphor, I think it was clumsily being used for data, not personnel. Especially because it's true for obvious reasons.

> The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming?

No, they're clearly claiming it's a non-partisan thing and the sitting president is irrelevant, as are the specifics of the virtue signalling happening. Yes, even though they qualified themselves with "this administration". Do you think that the Clintons aren't friends with the state department surveillance abomination or the nastiest parts of government writ large? That Bill or Hillary wouldn't fight tooth and nail to protect this terrible thing that's been wrought? Replace the context with some virtue signal about NATO intervention in Serbia 27 years ago, nothing changes. Partisan politics is for yokels.

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund.

That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general.

> Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.

Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.

▲

strictnein 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden.

I mean, you're correct? It's impossible to prove a negative.

> There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. You're the ones making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the people pointing out the flaws in these claims.

	▲	mobelkh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		i would argue, the NSA not being up to some bullshit is more unlikely, and thus has the burden of proof on it, to assume otherwise is to ignore history and basic incentives these orgs have.

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	strictnein 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This started under Biden? Crazy. > These days all three branches march lock step in their jackboots Which is why the Judicial branch has been ruling against the Executive branch again and again? I don't understand what evidence you think you have to the contrary, other than vibes?