And then it just continues in plain sight?
Yes, actually, it does. You've seen multiple examples of this surrounding Hillary Clinton and her operatives in the DNC in the last days and weeks. With Clinton, you've seen it for years. Are you actually surprised?
So you consider your actions in relation to the election to be irrelevant? Then why are you telling people that you're going to vote? Why do something you consider to be irrelevant, or why say it's irrelevant if you don't actually think that?
Oh, I get it
"But I'm not ignoring it, I'm enforcing it. I do not have to assist them in their search."
I think you are confusing "unreasonable search and seizure" with "any search and seizure". Swiping a finger is non-intrusive. Swabbing a cheek is non-intrusive. Maryland V King is a fairly recent example.
"Exactly. I am very disappointed that people think it's okay to compel anyone to assist in any way one's own prosecution,"
I knew the wording of this would toss up responses like yours.
This is no different than an order to produce blood/cheek swab or even passwords. The accused have the right to remain silent -- they do not have the right to ignore lawful search warrants. If you really want to keep information that the law cannot touch then either memorize it or have a trusted spouse memorize it.
You have no evidence of this
You mean, other than the FBI director directly answering questions about whether or not specific things that Clinton swore were true were in fact untrue? Are you really going to pretend that you haven't watched video of him clarifying that in response to multiple direct questions with examples?
And yes, the director was very clear that other people would face consequences for the things that he found Clinton had done and lied about. No, he was not able to find anyone willing to cite an example of a cabinet secretary deliberately destroying public records and mishandling classified information. Who was going to come up with that? It doesn't happen (until now). What he should have asked for was for any intern-level high school student to spend some time giving him a list of the people representing the long history of criminal prosecutions for government employees breaking the law - including the removing of classified information, sharing it with non-cleared third parties, and more of the things which he agreed that Clinton did. Because there are numerous examples of felony convictions in just such cases, many of which involving far less critical behavior than Clinton's.
If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.
Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.
That's because they don't fly through populated areas.
What? People operate these machines in suburban and busy areas all the time. Millions of them. Most operators are very casual and have very little skill, while using easy-to-fail devices with little or no redundancy or ability to tolerate even mild LiPo failure. And despite all of that, all of the mayhem that the hand-wringing nanny-staters keep talking about... doesn't happen.
As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie