Criminal negligence or reckless endangerment?

Never mind dereliction of duty; Trump's willful decision not to come to the aid of those under attack in Congress on January 6th should be seen as criminal negligence or even reckless endangerment. 

Typical defense strategies against allegations of criminal negligence include asserting that the defendant's actions were the result of a mistake or accident, or, and potentially most applicable here, that the defendant did not know that his actions (or inaction) created a risk of danger. 

Trump was watching the riot taking place, had been informed that people in the Capitol were in serious danger (is there any other kind?) but when asked to act to stop the insurrection, he chose not to. 

Perhaps reckless endangerment comes even closer. The FindLaw website defines "reckless endangerment" as "the criminal offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person. Whether you meant any harm or not, creating a situation that puts someone else at risk is illegal".  FindLaw also writes that recklessness "means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm".

Trump's failure to act during the insurrection, not to mention his actions leading up to January 6th, seem to fit this description. Suppose instead of a riot Trump had been watching a several hundred people drowning and had, at his beck and call, lifeboats that a could have saved most or even all of them. To not issue an order that the lifeboats be deployed to save the drowning looks like reckless endangerment. And that is exactly what he did (or did not do). When asked by numerous staffers, family members and even by those who were presently being attacked when they called him for help, he chose to do nothing. He simply watched on television as the insurrection roll on, apparently pleased with the way things were going. Add to this his prior acts; telling those now drowning, before they entered the lake, that the water was shallow when in fact it was deep or telling his supporters the election was rigged when the courts had determined that it wasn't, and you have a pretty solid case.    

McConnell argued today that this is not the end of the matter and that Trump may still face consequences in the legal system.  While McConnell maneuver to avoid being seen as party to the attempt to convict Trump in the Senate is despicable, I hope he is right on this and that the law catches up with Trump. All his life he has evaded accountability.  Perhaps this time he went a bridge too far. Perhaps now his past misdeeds will finally lead to his undoing.