Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why Donald Trump can’t be prosecuted for ‘dereliction of duty’ for his inaction on Jan. 6

Donald Trump, Jan. 6 committee

A video of President Donald Trump is shown during a hearing held Thursday night by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Pool/Getty Images

Bakken is a professor of law at the United States Military Academy West Point.

During the prime-time hearing on July 21 of the House Jan. 6 committee, the two panel members leading the hearing used the phrase “dereliction of duty” to describe the conduct of then-President Donald Trump.

Trump “was told by everyone to halt the violence,” Rep. Elaine Luria, a Democrat from Virginia, said. “But he refused to do anything. ... It was a dereliction of duty.”

GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois also described Trump’s inaction as a “dereliction of duty.”

“President Trump did not fail to act,” Kinzinger said. “He chose not to act.”

They echoed the media pundits, politicians and others who are using the same term, “dereliction of duty” to describe Trump’s inaction on Jan. 6, 2021.

The justification for using that term is that Trump encouraged attendees at a rally to march on the Capitol and then failed to do anything 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.


Committee Chairman U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, didn’t use “dereliction of duty,” but he detailed Trump’s inaction for 187 minutes between the time the president ended his speech at the rally near the White House at 1:10 p.m. and when he asked the rioters to leave in a video taped message from the Rose Garden at 4:17 p.m.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

“Even though he was the only person in the world that could call off the mob he sent to the U.S. Capitol,” Thompson said, “he could not be moved to rise from his dining room table, and walk the few steps down the White House hallway, into the press briefing room, where cameras were anxiously, and desperately, waiting to carry his message to the armed and violent mob.”

Given that most people believe dereliction of duty is a failure to take action that is legally required, the phrase can be used in this context to summarize a broader behavior and offer a way to cast blame.

As a former prosecutor in New York City and a professor of law at West Point, I believe that most people find solace in casting the most disparaging label possible upon an adversary.

The House committee investigating President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 may find that he did not fulfill his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” a requirement of each president, detailed in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The committee might find – and it apparently has, based on testimony presented throughout its hearings – that Trump’s failure to ensure that rioters would not storm the Capitol, and his failure to stop them once they were there, amounted to a dereliction of duty in an informal or colloquial sense.

But this is not an actual crime that could be applied to a president.

Moral judgment, not legal

While some states, such as Ohio, Texas and Virginia, have a crime titled dereliction or neglect of duty, the concept is better known in military law, where a federal criminal statute prohibits a member of the military from being “derelict in the performance of his duties.”

Under this statute, a soldier, for example, can be found guilty of a crime if the soldier failed to take an action that he or she was legally required to take, such as charging a hill following the order of a commander.

The House committee may conclude that President Trump failed to act by not stopping the rioters, which might be considered a violation of his responsibility under the Constitution.

But in my view, this would not be a criminal dereliction of duty.

The reason is that though a president is commander in chief of the military, he is a civilian and not a member of the military.

As a result, he is not subject to military law.

Federal criminal law does not contain a dereliction of duty statute.

Any state dereliction of duty laws, regardless of their elements, cannot apply to President Trump because on Jan. 6 he was in Washington, D.C. – not in any state, and D.C. doesn’t have one of its own.

A more precise way to consider the legality of President Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 is to determine whether he wanted the rioters to commit a criminal act and engaged in some speech or behavior that urged them to do so or assisted them in some way.

In that sense, the House Committee might find that the President was derelict.

But that finding would be a label of moral or social disapproval, not a description of a criminal offense.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Read More

majority vs minority
Sanga Park/Getty Images

Make a choice: majoritarian democracy or minority tyranny?

Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.

What is more American than majority rule — the principle that 50.1 percent carries the day when decisions affecting all of us are made? The majority wins, and the minority has to accept, even if not graciously, the decision of the greater number. That’s how decisions are made in this country. Right?

Not necessarily!

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump

Jabin Botsford/Getty Images

Scholars unmask Trump election lawyers’ use of falsified evidence

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

After 2022’s midterm election, I had an email exchange with Robert Beadles, a combative northern Nevada businessman and Donald Trump devotee. His post-2020 hounding of Reno’s top election official had pushed her to resign. Beadles didn’t trust the midterm results either and offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who’d prove that it was not stolen.

Easy money, right? Beadles’ distrust was tribal. But his reward hinged on refuting a statistical analysis that he waved like the flag. His statistician, Edward Solomon, who lived halfway across the country, found mathematical aberrations in the results that he didn’t like. The men claimed that was proof enough that the announced election results were dishonest.

I, and several experienced analysts — a math PhD, a computer scientist, and an election auditor who had spent years studying election systems, voting data, and procedures — tried to explain why the statistics, alone, did not prove anything. We politely told him what records to obtain, why they mattered, what methodologies to use. Beadles didn’t care and soon lashed out.

Keep ReadingShow less
D.C. Police Officer Daniel Hodges shakes hands with Rep. Liz Cheney at a hearing

Officer Daniel Hodges of the D.C. police force shakes hands with then-Rep. Liz Cheney at a July 21, 2022, House committee hearing investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Remembering Jan. 6 with an officer injured in the line of duty

To mark the third anniversary of the attacks on the Capitol, the hosts of the “Politics Is Everything” podcast talked with D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who was beaten by rioters that day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Election challengers in Detroit in 2020

Election challengers demand to observe the counting of absentee ballots in Detroirt in 2020. The room had reached capacity.

Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images

It's 2024 and the battle for democracy in the U.S. continues

Merloe provides strategic advice on democracy and elections to U.S. and international organizations. He is a former director of election integrity programs at the nonpartisan National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

The U.S. political environment is suffering from toxic polarization, with election deniers constantly spewing noxious vapors to negate belief in the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, the integrity of election administration, and the honorableness of their political opponents. The constant pollution has blinded many from seeing the real state of things and is causing others to close their eyes to avoid the irritation. The resulting diminished public confidence and perhaps participation in elections creates more precarious conditions in 2024 than it faced in 2020 and 2022.

I’ve learned an important lesson from observing elections in more than 50 countries: Even when elections are credible, if a large segment of the population is made to believe otherwise their outcome and the fate of democracy can easily be placed in jeopardy. Unfortunately, that is a central feature of the present electoral circumstance, and concerted action is needed to mitigate that damage and prevent it from worsening.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans wrapped in a flag

"We must reaffirm the principles under which our country will function," writes Goodrich.

SeventyFour/Getty Images

Together, we can save our democracy

Goodrich is the president and CEO of The Center for Organizational Excellence.

Our democracy is being challenged and, if lost, will impact our way of life in more ways than most may realize. I have given a lot of thought as to why our country’s political environment is in such chaos, facing significant turmoil that challenges our present and our future.

It is important to note that I am truly politically independent. I do not carry the water of any political party and always attempt to consider what is in the best interest of our country. I can have both conservative and liberal tendencies, depending on the issue being addressed, and believe at times each party goes to unhelpful extremes. Occasionally they get it right, but perhaps it’s time to rethink our two-party model.

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution. I believe it is an imperfect document but provides a strong foundation for the democracy it established. I am in awe that the Founding Fathers thought so much through that it is still applicable today. Every American should read it, and there are “plain language” versions online if it helps. While still strong, it perhaps needs some updating, expanded explanation and more precise language.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less