I get that they can change the law. But instead of changing the law, they gave him a plea deal on the condition he didn't contest it at a higher court.
So why not change the law when there's an obvious loophole?
So why not change the law when there's an obvious loophole?
I expect the answer with this sort of thing is that there are a lot of people in Congress who would roll their eyes and say that they have better things to do than screw around with some weird legal edge case that has basically never actually been a problem. And they're not necessarily wrong.