> 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 2 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 an hour 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.