"I can assure the Committee that the CIA follows the letter and spirit of the law in terms of what CIA’s authorities are"
It seems clear to me that "in terms of what CIA's authorities are" means "the preceding statement only addresses things the CIA is legally authorized to do". In short, the statement literally means "The CIA follows the law when it follows the law" and does not say anything about when they don't.
I don't think that was seeing a restriction where there isn't one. "Mainly used for legal purposes" is a very much higher bar than "has substantial non-infringing uses".
Case in point: my daughter is a freshman in a private US college; their terms for connecting to their network are that no bittorrent software may even be installed on the student's computer, something violated by her laptop with a vanilla Ubuntu installation. Doesn't matter that there are legitimate uses for bittorrent; what matters is what they expect a majority of student use to be. This is clearly overreach.
a conference named Buffalo, the second year being Buffalo buffalo, and every year thereafter adding a new buffalo. And if it forks, they can keep identical names but have different parse trees to avoid dilution.