This is definitely not true. Dianne Feinstein for instance has been instrumental in almost all of these efforts. As a senator from California, she could be replaced with someone nearly politically identical that didn't support government surveillance.

What they're saying is that those who get elected are forced to support government surveillance.

who you are before you get elected and after are not the same. never forget that.

For lots of reasons. There are 100 Epsteins you dont know the name of still at large, and their main purpose is blackmail of top politicians and businessmen on behalf of whatever intel agency or mafia runs them. Trumps mentor Roy Cohn was one of these.

And blackmail is only one tool in the toolbelt. Bribery comes long before that. Anybody with too much integrity is quickly removed from office or worse.

Ive tried to explain to some progressives why AOC and the squad have turned their backs on them with this, but for many their schoolhouse rock propagandized brains refuse to admit its as bad as it is.

It only gets worse the more we aquiesce to increases in censorship and surveillance (which I like to remind people is in the hands of the executive branch, further eroding the checks and balances system).

Remember, the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday to get back at you.

- Senator Chuck Schumer

From what I've read, Senator Ron Wyden is a relatively vocal opponent of surveillance. Hopefully he's not an outlier forever.

I'm not sure which was intended, but I think this is much more accurate as a cynical comment on human nature than some comment on "shadow government/deep state" type stuff.

As defines so much of society and what people claim is "human nature", there is no need for shadow governments or deep states when you have power structures and incentives. Those scale, conspiracies don't.