The view from the bottom of the “slippery slope” looks fine

Yesterday’s “presidents should be above the law” op-ed in the Times was so comprehensively atrocious that I neglected to mention one of the least convincing slippery sloper hypotheticals of all time:

Substantial legal impediments stand in the way of prosecutors who might want to charge a former president for official actions, but there are plenty of areas that remain open for scrutiny even during the presidency. Every president travels throughout the country campaigning, fund-raising and making stops for official business. Say a candidate instructs the motorcade to speed to an event and it results in a deadly car accident or he directs organizers to let people into a venue that is over capacity and someone loses his or her life, crushed in the crowd. Are we later going to see an investigation and prosecution for involuntary manslaughter?

Uh…good? This seems like exactly the kind of conduct that should be investigated? Reckless indifference to human life seems bad? What am I supposed to find objectionable here?

Khardori’s arguments is based on two terrible things believed by too many American elites: “elites should be immune from legal accountability” and “people who kill people with reckless driving should be immune from legal accountability.” Personally, I think we should reject both!