The hearings of the House select committee on the insurrection of January 6, 2021, are formally separate from any criminal charges that might be brought against Donald Trump for his conduct relating to that event. But many people will perceive the committee’s work to have failed if the Justice Department, which, according to the Washington Post, is investigating Trump as part of its probe, does not seek to indict the former President.
What distinguished last Thursday’s hearing from the seven that preceded it was its focus not on Trump’s actions but, rather, on his inaction. That session, the last before the committee is scheduled to resume hearings in the fall, was arguably the most threatening for Trump thus far, because, counter intuitively, the evidence of what Trump didn’t do, more than what he did, holds the strongest potential for making a successful criminal case against him.
Among the first lessons that American law students are taught is that if you see a person drowning and you could easily throw him a rope but choose not to, your inaction may be morally wrong but you have not committed a crime.
By contrast, though, if the drowning person is someone you have a legal duty to aid—for example, if it’s your spouse or your child, or if you are on duty as a lifeguard, or even if you accidentally pushed the person into the water—and you do nothing to help, then you could be legally liable, even for criminal homicide.
In other words, if individuals have a legal duty to act but choose not to, they could be held responsible for the harm that results, no less than anyone who acted to cause harm.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-dereliction-of-duty-finally-be-what-gets-donald-trump-indicted
So more potential crimes Trump could be convicted off
