Rand Paul wrote a letter to Mueller's FBI in 2012 (midway through Obama's rule) asking why peaceful political groups (usually some right wing ideology) were monitored as domestic terrorists

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/216473-rand-paul-letter-to-f-b-i-director-robert-mueller.html

b. "Also of concern is the fact that pages 39-41 of this list many different pro-life websites, which seems to suggest that the FBI is attempting to characterize these peaceful groups as somehow "violent." The manual's list groups such as American Center for Law and Justice, American Life League, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, Concerned Women for America, Life Decisions International, Human Life International, Life Dynamics, National Right to Life, Priests for Life, Pro-Life Action League, Rock for Life, STOPP Planned Parenthood, population Research Institute, and Students for Life. Please explain why this list of pro-life groups is in the manual.

c. Is the FBI continuing to conduct training seminars at which this is distributed?

1. A report entitled "The Modern Militia Movement" released by a Missouri fusion center in 2009 specifically mentions third-party political groups as being a potential risk factor in identifying domestic terrorists, and suggests that supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr are somehow suspect. The report also that displaying anti-abortion and anti-immigration material is suspect.

a. Please provide each state's fusion center's list of domestic groups that are subject to scrutiny. include lists/groups from fusion centers in all 50 States. b. Please provide the specific criteria used by fusion centers to identify domestic groups as suspicious or suspect.

Furthermore he sent out warnings to FBI officials to treat "9/11 truthers" as terrorists

https://archive.is/mm9uh

Robert Mueller says those seeking the truth about what really happened on September 11 should be treated as terrorists and monitored by the FBI and DHS. Back in 2012, when Mueller was director of the FBI, he ordered the bureau to send out flyers instructing law enforcement officers to treat people who referred to themselves as “9/11 truthers” as “possible terrorists”.

Even today the "conspiracy theorist" category has been added to the FBI's domestic terror watch list

https://nypost.com/2019/08/01/fbi-conspiracy-theory-extremists-are-a-terror-threat/

The importance of the abuse of "terror" in labels is that the term has historically been used by abusive governments to attack civilians

The Phoenix program in Vietnam, unique for it's focus on attacking Vietnamese civilians (rather than just militants) was a novelty in that government style, and it was originally called the "counter-terror" program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

The interrogation centers and PRUs were developed by the CIA's Saigon station chief Peer de Silva. DeSilva was a proponent of a military strategy known as counter-terrorism, which encompasses military tactics and techniques that government, military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies use to combat or prevent terrorist activities, and that it should be applied strategically to "enemy civilians" in order to reduce civilian support for the VC. The PRUs were designed with this in mind, and began targeting suspected VC members in 1964.[7] Originally, the PRUs were known as "Counter Terror" teams, but they were renamed to "Provincial Reconnaissance Units" after CIA officials "became wary of the adverse publicity surrounding the use of the word 'terror'".[16]

By contrast, in early 2009 we saw Obamas admin trying to expand surveillance on the alleged threat of "right wing terror" and/or "white supremacist terror groups", a vague ideological category in most cases,

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

Napolitano stands by controversial report

By Eli Lake and Audrey Hudson - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 16, 2009

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” that such a report would be issued.

“This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in his letter sent Tuesday night.

...In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.

And his admin simultaneously ignored and discredited investigation over real Islamist terror (ie with actual roots to violent-condoning and inciting networks)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

Days after the shooting, reports in the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of a series of e-mails between Hasan and the Yemen-based Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of his increasing radicalization for several years. The failure to prevent the shootings led the Defense Department and the FBI to commission investigations, and Congress to hold hearings.

The U.S. government declined requests from survivors and family members of the slain to categorize the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism, or motivated by militant Islamic religious convictions.[8] In November 2011, a group of survivors and family members filed a lawsuit against the government for negligence in preventing the attack, and to force the government to classify the shootings as terrorism. The Pentagon argued that charging Hasan with terrorism was not possible within the military justice system and that such action could harm the military prosecutors' ability to sustain a guilty verdict against Hasan.[9]