Which illustrates why it is probably better to address what is said rather than what else you think a person might think in addition to what is said.
EDIT: To amplify: I've explicitly laid out why the existing FISC system is not a meaningful check, and I have explicitly declined to take a position on whether it would be possible to reform the system in a way which would retain its essential character as a judicial oversight system while fixing the problems that prevent it from being meaningful oversight. We haven't addressed any other (e.g., non-judicial) checks, existing or potential, nor have I commented at all on what should exist. So your inference that I must believe certain things about what should exist, or that I have a particular belief about what checks are possible on foreign surveillance, is unwarranted.