>Incorrect. DoJ have an administrative rule that a sitting President cannot be charged by them. As for official acts by the government, they’re subject to judicial review. No analogous process exists in China.

Judicial review is simply enforcement of laws that are found to have primacy. Chinese retired officials have been charged, found guilty, and found liable hundreds of times. As for the analogous process of "judicial review" in China, it's called... Judicial Review. It has many flaws in practice due to partisanship of the judges, they are all also present in the US. The procedure for Chinese judicial review is codified under the Administrative Procedure Law I mentioned in my previous comment. The main difference is that Chinese judicial review applies only to acts and not to laws, because the Chinese constitution mandates primacy of the National People's Congress, therefore any power to strike laws would ironically enough be unconstitutional.

Moreover, former officials frequently get sued in China for crimes performed during their tenure.

>This betrays ignorance of the American Constitutional system. The U.S. government routinely loses in court. Prior rulings are overturned. The legislature is checked. The President stayed.

The legislative is checked, but not the State. I don't understand why you keep confusing the U.S. Government sometimes with the US legislative branch and sometimes with the US executive branch. Courts are part of the State. This should be evident after an analysis of the US Constitution, not just a cursory reading, and is indeed the interpretation taken by the Supreme Court as well as the basis for Sovereign immunity. See the last paragraph pf the next quotation of ever-helpful Wikipedia.

>Sovereign immunity is a courtesy granted to other nations under common law. It does not exist per se

Incorrect :

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9]

The principle was not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. The courts have recognized it both as a principle that was inherited from English common law, and as a practical, logical inference (that the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that creates the courts in the first place).[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

You seem to be confusing Sovereign Immunity, which only applies to the Federal and Local governments of the United States, with State Immunity, which is much weaker than Sovereign Immunity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_immunity

> makes no sense to be invoked with respect to a state without the rule of law

This is a circular argument as it the conclusion is also a premise.

>With respect to American courts, the U.S. government has broadly consented to being sued by virtue of the Constitution. To claim sovereign immunity, a creature of the law, limits the legal system is to misunderstand one of the basic tenets of the system.

Incorrect. See, The Eleventh Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_Unit...