How fucking plain do they have to be?

[Jeebo]

I was just watching Alicia Melendez and Mary McCord talking on MSNBC about today's arguments before the Supreme Court about whether the law about interfering with government processes under which January 6 rioters were prosecuted applies to them. Recordings of a few of the exchanges between the justices and lawyers on both sides were played. While listening to these exchanges, and the arguments put forth by the orange con man's lawyers, I kept thinking, HOW FUCKING PLAIN does the language have to be in these laws? These assholes are trying to parse every little phrase, every word, every crossed t and dotted i, to try to make it sound like these laws mean something other than what they clearly mean. It's DISGUSTING, I tell you. Just getting this off my chest by posting it here ...

-- Ron

[calimary]

1. That's one of the joys of this place.

MANY of us have vented here, and it feels great and doesn't hurt anybody.

[The Wizard]

2. Mitch McConnell's skullduggery

has done generational damage to the United States.

[Frasier Balzov]

3. Uncle Clarence wanted to know why Ginny's friends are being persecuted.

[vapor2]

4. Did any person explain this to him?

[Frasier Balzov]

6. The woman representing the government was up to the task.

[ShazzieB]

8. Yes, she was brilliant!

Solicitor General of the U.S. Elizabeth B. Prelogar

https://www.justice.gov/osg/staff-profile/meet-solicitor-general

[Bobstandard]

7. I'm not sure 'Uncle Clarence' is the right way to put it

But I t ake your point.

[SergeStorms]

5. I heard about it.....

but didn't see it. Yeah, they all want to be released immediately and supposedly this is supposed to clear Trump's "good name" in one of his upcoming trials, but for the life of me I can't figure out which one that would be?

Has he been charged with insurrection somewhere I'm not aware of?