Trump’s inaction during Capitol riot underscores a ‘horrible dereliction of responsibility’ that could be evidence for criminal charges against the former president, criminal law expert says
Details
- Publish Date:
- July 23, 2022
- Author(s):
-
- Lee, Lloyd
- Source:
- Business Insider
- Related Person(s):
- Related Organization(s):
Summary
“As the committee kept emphasizing, the real theme that was distinctive about this hearing was its emphasis on Trump’s notable inaction rather than his actions,” said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law professor at Stanford Law School and former clerk for Justice Potter Stewart. “Therefore supplementing the actions that were laid out in previous testimony.”
It continues to provide additional “character data” into Trump and what many people already feel was his “horrible dereliction of responsibility,” Weisberg said.
But when it comes to evidence of a crime, there’s one nuanced reading of criminal law that could argue how Trump’s inaction makes him just as culpable for crimes — such as obstruction of Congress, causing physical harm, or vandalism to the Capitol — when considering presidential duties, according to Weisberg.
“The argument of his inaction would be that: In his role as president and in his role as someone who at least was already somewhat responsible for stirring up activity at the Capitol, he then had a duty to stop it when he realized how violent it was getting,” Weisberg said. “Therefore, the not-doing-anything during those 187 minutes is itself a criminal act.”
The law professor gave the analogy of watching a child drown. If a child was clearly in distress and ends up drowning in front of you, can you be criminally responsible for it?
The rule of thumb to consider here is if the individual had a pre-existing duty to the child, such as a parent, guardian, or lifeguard, Weisberg said. If there was some responsibility, then the individual could be culpable of a crime.
“If my omission to act is done when I’m conscious of what’s happening, I can be guilty even of homicide there,” he said. “I culpably caused it.”
Whether this would convince a grand jury in a trial, however, is another question.
“It’s an argument that could be made,” Weisberg said. “I’m not sure if it would win before a jury, but there’s doctrinal basis or it.”