Dereliction of duty should have been in the articles of impeachment

I don't really know why dereliction of duty wasn't included as an article of impeachment.  Seems like it would have been a surer bet than incitement to insurrection.  But now we're at a stage where it's important.  Not that it would make enough Republicans vote to convict (although it's not inconceivable), but that the record needs it.

Though many Senate Democrats have indicated they don’t believe witnesses are necessary to prove that Trump incited the deadly riots that overran the Capitol, new developments have hinted at startling details that could be unearthed if the Senate trial pauses and House impeachment managers are allowed to depose several witnesses.

And a handful of Senate Republicans weighing Trump’s conviction have indicated that these details could be decisive.

In particular, the group of Senate Republicans considering conviction want to know what Trump did while the violence overtook the Capitol. Trump’s defense team has argued that he was immediately “horrified” by what unfolded and took swift action to send aid to Congress. But that account conflicts with those of Trump’s closest allies and news reports citing his top aides. And the House prosecutors have underscored that Trump did virtually nothing to quell the riots as the violence mounted.

[...]

Late Friday, a previously revealed anecdote took on new life when Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) pleaded with Pence and others close to Trump to reveal what they know. Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment, reiterated an account of a conversation that Trump had with House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy while rioters ransacked the Capitol.

Herrera Beutler said that in McCarthy’s telling, he pleaded with Trump to call off his supporters. Trump initially responded by denying they were his backers and attributing the breach to left-wing extremists. McCarthy, per Herrera Beutler, rejected Trump’s claim, to which Trump purportedly responded “I guess these people are just more angry about the election and upset than you are.”

Both Tuberville and Herrera Beutler’s anecdotes have revived the witness debate, prompting one Senate Democrat — who just hours earlier on Friday said calling witnesses would be unnecessary — to suggest pausing the trial to depose McCarthy ad Tuberville.

[...]

While a handful of Democrats still indicated they felt witnesses were unnecessary and might prolong the inevitable, others continued to suggest Saturday morning that they'd like to hear from McCarthy, Tuberville or others.

[...]

Responding to these developments, a source close to the Trump legal team suggested that if Democrats pursued these witnesses, the trial would get "real ugly, real fast."

"The first two witnesses that we would call would be Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser. And they can explain why they rejected additional security and national guard help," said the Trump team source.

  Politico

Which would have no bearing on Trump's culpability. But the bigger problem is this:

"The call for witnesses has absolutely nothing to do with the actual article of impeachment that has been filed. The article of impeachment is very specific to incitement," the source said, echoing an argument lodged by Trump attorney Mark van der Veen Friday.

[...]

As the witness question loomed, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell signaled to colleagues that he would be voting to acquit Trump.

Who's surprised?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

That seems odd.  Why not McCarthy himself?

UPDATE:

Good point.

UPDATE 2/13 11:00am:  Witnesses will be called.