> 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.

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.