Its possible for multiple lanes to turn without anyone cutting anyone off, but its also possible for people to turn right from the middle lane of the source street into the rightmost lane of the target street, cutting off people in the rightmost lane of the source street attempting to turn, or to make a right turn from a middle lane that is not allowed to turn, cutting of a legal right-into-any-lane from the rightmost lane when it is the only turning lane, so if someone explicitly says that's what they see and there is no available counterevidence that they are misreporting their observation, questioning it accompanied by a description of how it is possible for people to turn from multiple lanes into distinct lanes in harmony without anyone being cutoff is not particularly useful.

> the car on the inside is required to turn into the nearest lane (according to any state law I know)

That's the base rule in most jurisdictions, but there are places where it doesn't apply. See, e.g., for California: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-veh/division-11...

"its also possible for people to turn right from the middle lane of the source street into the rightmost lane of the target"

So you've created hypothetical situations that are no more useful than mine. I specifically mentioned having to turn into the nearest lane. If that's not true somewhere, then neither would adjacent turners be allowed. I simply asked if they were really cutting the other people off.

WTF, YOU made the comment: "If the right lane goes straight"

You might as well say, "if the people on the opposite side of the road cross the median..."

Otherwise, it makes literally no sense, as you say.

Most people don't post utterly logically inconsistent ideas. Usually, they just screw up English and mean one thing when they say the other.