That doesn't fit the captiol protest very well. Sudden? Decisive? Exercise of force?
>That doesn't fit the captiol protest very well. Sudden? Decisive? Exercise of force?
Tell that to Brian Sicknick's[0] family.
Or did you miss the part where five people died and dozens were injured?
Or the smashed windows to force entry into the Capitol building, with some explicitly saying they were there to overturn the results of the election.
Let's see. A mob overpowers the assembled security without warning. That's sudden. Check.
An armed group stormed the Capitol, assaulted police and other folks, and by their own claims, wished to injure, take hostage and/or kill elected officials. Exercise of force. Check.
That same group did so, again based on their own claims, to overturn legally certified election results. Political motive. Check.
So please tell me, what doesn't fit the term "coup d'etat"? Or in this case, attempted coup d'etat?
Note that just because it didn't succeed doesn't change the facts or the intent.
If I walk into a bank and demand money, I'm still a bank robber even if I don't actually get any money. The analogy is fairly exact.
[0] https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/what-we-know-about-the-5-p...
As I said, I am not sure I buy that anyone with half a brain thought that a plan could work, but there seems to be some supporting evidence that something like this had been imagined by at the very least some of the people at the protest. How far into the Trump administration that might have gone, I don't know (or if went into it at all).
Had something like that happened, it would definitely have been a decisive, sudden show of force in politics.
Start before the election with attempts to suppress Democratic voting (I did not know this, but apparently mail-in ballots are known for leaning Democratic---"Red mirage and blue surge" or something.), then attack the legitimacy of the election, both in the legal system and in public statements (increasing the latter as the former failed), further make semi-covert calls for illegal actions on the part of various officials associated with the election, and finally call for and support a protest (specifically including the more extreme supporters) at an event that is largely a formality. Yes, I think the whole course of events satisfies the definition of a coup.
Not a competent one, of course. A competent coup would have called in National Guard or military forces to suppress the rioters and at the same time sequester the members of the House and Senate in an undisclosed location for their own protection. Then declare a national emergency, place National Guard or military forces in state capitols and large cities---at that point violence becomes inevitable and the coup self-sustaining. (This isn't exactly a genius mastermind plan; it's how it's done all over the world.)
That does require the cooperation of the military, which Mr. Trump never really had, though.
Some of us are still wondering, though, why there were only Capitol Police at the Capitol. It seems likely that had the protest been another group, significant riot control forces would have been in place.
