The phrase "dereliction of duty" was used by the two panel members leading the hearing.
Luria said that Trump was told to stop the violence. It was a failure of duty for him to refuse to do anything.
Kinzinger called Trump's action a "dereliction of duty"
The president did not fail to act. He did not take action.
The media pundits and politicians used the same term to describe Trump's failure to act.
Trump encouraged attendees at a rally to march on the Capitol and then failed to stop the violence once they had invaded the U.S. Capitol building, despite the pleas of his staff, political leaders and his family to do so.
Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, didn't use "dereliction of duty" but he detailed Trump's inaction for 186 minutes between the time the president ended his speech at the rally and when he left.
He was the only person in the world that could call off the mob he sent to the U.S. Capitol.
The phrase can be used to summarize a broader behavior and offer a way to blame if you want.
According to the Constitution, every president is required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
According to testimony presented throughout its hearings, the committee might find that Trump had a duty to prevent rioters from storming the Capitol and that he failed to do so.
This isn't an actual crime that a president could be accused of.
In military law, a federal criminal statute prohibits a member of the military from being "derelict in the performance of his duties."
A soldier can be found guilty of a crime if he or she fails to take an action that he or she was legally required to take, such as charging a hill.
The House committee may conclude that President Trump failed to stop the rioters, which could be considered a violation of his responsibility under the constitution.
I think this would not be a crime.
The president isn't a member of the military because he is a civilian.
He isn't subject to military law.
The federal criminal law doesn't have a duty to obey.
Even though President Trump was in Washington, D.C., on January 6th, he couldn't be held responsible for the state's failure to fulfill its duty.
One way to consider the legality of President Trump's conduct is to determine if he wanted the rioters to commit a criminal act or if he encouraged them to do so or aided them in some way.
The House Committee could find that the President was not following the rules.
That finding is not a description of a criminal offense.
The Conversation is a news site that shares ideas from academic experts. Tim Bakken was the writer of it.
You can read more.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
