It was an insurrection attempt by incompetents and LARPers, but absolutely an insurrection attempt.
If you want to compare it to something, I would recommend the fall conspiracy to capture the Michigan governor, put them on a mock trial and then publicly execute them for their "crimes": https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/fbi-plot-michigan-go...
How would they have done that? Nobody would listen to a bunch of hooligans pronouncing orders from the House rostrum. In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders, providing actual institutional power to the usurpers.
There was no institutional power behind these people -- do you think some general at Andrews was waiting for the phone call to signal his support for the guy in the viking hat?
This was an act of vandalism, and maybe burglary or "home" invasion robbery.
Attempted murder is still a felony, even if's a very dumb attempt. The same is true for coups.
> In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders, providing actual institutional power to the usurpers.
The Q folks think this is exactly what the military is going to do.
In order for a coup to be successful, institutions need to endorse the new order or have their heads replaced with loyalists. Capturing the symbolic seat of power, or even killing elected representatives doesn't accomplish that. In this scenario there would've needed to be a body of bureaucrats and officers in every branch and every agency who would see the house leader lynched on TV and then said, yes I'm ready to do the bidding of the usurping administration.
This would be hundreds of people, if not thousands, in the highest ranking civilian positions who would all have to endorse or be arrested. Then because this is a federalist system, local governments would all have had to endorse the new system or be replaced. Also, the judiciary. Also, all branches of the military.
Unless you believe we were on the precipice of this happening, it wasn't a coup, and if you do think we were anywhere close to seeing this happen, you're insane and wrong. It was at best a bumbling terrorist attack. More accurately IMO, it was mob violence resulting from an epic failure of crowd control.
There were a number of different, complementary means envisioned, the simplest of which was reflected in the chant “Hang Mike Pence”, which existed because the pro-coup political intelligentsia had proposed that the Vice President could and should simply refuse to open the certificates from selected states, denying the Democrats a majority of counted EVs, or alternatively could choose unilateral to accept “alternate” slates of electors from some of those states, an approach Mike Pence rejected. Removing Pence would result in a different presiding officer who might be more amenable to the plan.
And, sure, that still seems like a pretty dumb plan, but an insurrection doesn't stop being an coup attempt because the plan is stupid.
> In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders.
You’re thinking of a coup in favor of a faction that doesn't already hold the cheif executives office. An auto-coup, which is what was intended, usually involves some mechanism to provide a pretext to either extend power beyond it's lawful limits or extend it beyond it's legal term, not to seize it from the current holder. The only person you need to ready to do anything is the existing executive, who just needs to accept the offered pretext to retain power. Which Trump already announced his support for this theory and his anger at Pence for refusing it, which was a major contributor to the insurrection.
In the meantime, people who continuously talk about insurrection seem to be living in a fantasy land. Just as you say, without the military the "insurrection" means nothing.
Kill enough congress members so the election can’t be certified. Elect Trump speaker of the house (speaker doesn’t need to be a member of congress). Since the election wasn’t certified, the constitution declares the speaker (now Trump) becomes President on the 20th.
They didn't need a general waiting in the wings, they just needed the President who was already sitting in the WhiteHouse.
No one is pretending that the crazies on the left don't need to be accountable. There are those, of course, who believe that. But you are arguing against a point that hasn't been made--and most definitely one I did not make.
I'll say it myself, just to be clear: Anyone who riots (or foments an insurrection) needs to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law after a fair trial.
I watched my friends businesses burn last summer, as well as many other businesses near my home. The common response was " "we're doing this because we have this right, we're frustrated at the system that did X or Y". None of my friends caused any real or perceived in-equality towards anyone, none of them are racist, all of them as well as I, support the right for individuals to love and marry whomever they want. They were by and large allies, yet someone arbitrarily determined that because their business was there, Insurance would cover and they could loot and burn it. They decided that when they responded in public days later, that they were white males and even if they weren't bad, it was retribution for whatever grievance someone held. Anyone that doesn't believe that those actions, that persisted for months, weren't abhorent and just as destructive to democracy and our country, then you're not being honest with yourselves.
The point is, the media is choosing to doom and gloom this situation when I would argue half of America has had this same perspective for a year. I'm not arguing the merits of either sides grievances, though I think both have many valid points.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/channel-7-journalists...
If the Trump supporters had similarly stayed outside of the gates, nobody would even remember the protest as more than a bit of trivia.
(Edit: I added “storming” to the first sentence to avoid any confusion about whether I was referring to the well-publicized bunker trip)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-moved...
For people who aren’t familiar with the area, this area is normally open and there are often protests. I bike or walk through regularly and you’ll almost always see someone at the fence with a sign about something.
This is in sharp contrast to the coup attempt where the insurgents quickly blew through areas which are never open to the public – think about how many of the videos have alarms ringing in the background.
Note also that I’m not faulting the Secret Service – it’s not hard to imagine someone trying to breach the gate and it’s their job to protect the President. My objection is entirely due to presenting these as equivalents.
There’s plenty of video evidence contradicting the rosy picture you paint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4
It's pretty long since it covers the build up and call for violence the day prior, but if you want a TL;DW, skip straight to 59:02
Also what do you think the guy brought zip ties for? There had never been an airplane hijacked by some guy with a box cutter until it actually happened.