in failures to notice espionage by foreign powers that happen to make large campaign contributions, for example -- I suppose I can understand this point of view. I do not agree with it, however. It may be that the existence of a pair of underwear may give the Clinton administration an uncontrollable urge to rummage around in them. I can imagine the sympathy the Clinton administration has for someone who really wants to rummage around in someone else's shorts, and cannot. But I believe most people would understand that an urge to rummage around in someone else's underwear should be suppressed, not made a "right" under law. Maybe after they outlaw encryption, they will outlaw belts -- after all, belts block access to people's shorts. "Only someone with som
             ...