It's just hilariously disingenuous. Imagine looking at, say, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and concluding that the biggest threat to liberty isn't abuse of power, but powerful people refraining from sufficiently wielding their authority out of fear that they might one day be held accountable.
It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.
I've made a bit of a hobbyhorse out of Nikolas Sarkozy's criminal prosecutions, and the multiple dimensions by which a similar case would be impossible in the US
I now have a new overarching grounds to add (president = god-emperor)
bsky.app/profile/saba...
Sarkozy’s 2nd trial wouldn’t get anywhere in the US—
•he was accuse of rerouting unused campaign cash post-election
•was accused of exceeding the statutory spending cap of €22.5 million and covering it up
•lax mens rea requirement (govt needn’t prove knowledge or intent)
www.bbc.com/news/world-e...
