The problem is that you only 'know' what conversations are being monitored without a warrant because someone tells you what is being monitored without a warrant.
Unreasonable searches are not allowed by the Constitution. Reasonable searches are allowed by the Constitution. There are times when it is reasonable to search without a warrant.
It is reasonable for a CIC to tap Al Qaeda conversations into this country during a time of war when a NSA court becomes politicized and the potential for our defense against a WMD attack is at high risk.
It is then up to a CIC to notify post fact, when national security is nolonger affected, that the search was made.
If the CIC does not notify post-fact, the CIC is wrong.
The fact is that you don't have guarantees that a CIC is not going to do something wrong. That is the nature of doing something wrong. There are no guarantees. The Constitution is not a Utopian document. There is no such thing.
That is why a CIC such as Hillary would do something wrong regardless of what the Constitution empowers her to do.
That is how it is up to the electorate to keep this republic free. Don't elect a Hillary.
I'm guessing you probably believe those who claim that only conversations with suspected terrorists are being monitored. You probably believe it because you trust the people telling you that. Would you believe it if Hillary were telling you that?
Your guess is wrong. Your guess is annoying. don't make such uneducated guesses next time, okay.
It is sad that you care so little for our Constitution that you will defend the program while believing this, because this is a clear violation of Constitutional and statutory law.
Oh - BTW - you got any shred of proof for your assertion that the FISA court is 'politicized'?