According to that logic, does any sort of protest outside the capitol = "coup attempt"? After all, you don't need to actually need people breaking in to cite "anger of the people outside".
The rally was organized under the headline "Stop the Steal." It was very explicitly the intent to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
No, because other types of protests outside the Capitol (i.e. over abortion, environmental issues, civil rights, war), and their related tactics within Congress are not aimed at stopping the constitutional process of certifying a lawful election.
That's is quite literally what differentiates a coup from the others: A coup uses force and threat to unlawfully take control of the government.
Normal protests outside the Capitol are about influencing the legislative process, which is a completely different function of Congress. But even then, it would be unlawful to influence the legislative process by threat or use of force.
responding to your edits:
>That's is quite literally what differentiates a coup from the others: A coup uses force and threat to unlawfully take control of the government.
But using force to prevent the legislature from functioning when they're not certifying elections is fine?
>Normal protests outside the Capitol are about influencing the legislative process, which is a completely different function of Congress. But even then, it would be unlawful to influence the legislative process by threat or use of force.
I'm specifically talking about protests that involve denying access to the legislature, not just a bunch of people protesting in the free speech zone.
Correct. A coup is by definition an illegal attempt to take control of government. In a democracy, attempting to prevent a lawful election from being certified is a type of coup.
> Why is the "constitutional process of" passing bills not protected?
It is protected. If an insurrection invaded the Capitol to influence the legislative process, that would be illegal. Anyone involved in organizing or carrying that out would be charged with crimes.
You're losing track of the thread. A few comments up we were discussing whether violent action was needed at all, because the parent poster was talking about "trying to reject the vote certification by using the anger of the people", which could plausibly be achieved without any violent action (eg. a bunch of angry protesters).
> Anyone involved in organizing or carrying that out would be charged with crimes.
but not "insurrection", apparently?
Coups enacted by politicians are facilitated by the breakdown of law and order and loss of security around the processes of power in government, the most delicate of those being lawful transitions of power. Violence assists by removing security and law and order.
> which could plausibly be achieved without any violent action (eg. a bunch of angry protesters).
A bunch of angry protesters shouting in the demonstration area have no leverage beyond drawing media attention to their cause.
People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.
> but not "insurrection", apparently?
I didn't say which crimes. Prosecutorial strategy is a real thing and the bread and butter of the Dept of Justice. It makes far more sense to roll up low-level offenders with lesser offenses to build cases against higher level conspirators. This is, for example, how organized crime has been successfully prosecuted.
>People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.
So the insurrection-ness of a protest/riot increases during "lawful transitions of power"? Suppose this premise was true, does that mean something like this[1] is also an insurrection (or "almost [...] a coup"), because it happened during a "lawful transitions of power" for a supreme court justice?
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/28/brett-kavanau...
>A bunch of angry protesters shouting in the demonstration area have no leverage beyond drawing media attention to their cause.
Sounds like you're agreeing with me. ie. you can't cite "anger of the people outside" as a potential reason for "reject the vote certification".
>People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.
Not disputing it's illegal, just that it's not an "insurrection".
>I didn't say which crimes. It makes far more sense to roll up low-level offenders with lesser offenses to build cases against higher level conspirators.
What are you saying here, that the lack of prosecution for insurrection is totally consistent with an "insurrection" taking place, because they'll eventually work their way up to the real conspirators and charge them with insurrection? Well, it's been a year now, and nothing resembling an insurrection charge has surfaced.
No. For one, that protest was during the nomination debate, not the actual swearing in by the Chief Justice, so not a transition of power. It was also not a violent mob.
It absolutely a differentiator that the Jan 6 scenario was a violent mob forcing their way into the Capitol to overturn an election. No amount of semantic judo or whataboutism will make the utter brutality of that mob equivalent to a nonviolent protest.
Finally, the Supreme Court nomination protesters were arrested for when they tried to block lawmakers from getting to their offices. They are no different in their manner of protest than nonviolent pro-life/anti-abortion protesters who have obstructed members of Congress at the Capitol, and neither are like the Jan 6 perpetrators.
If you watch the most violent parts of all of those protests, it's hard to understand how smashing a police officer's face in a door and beating another with a fire extinguisher can be considered equivalent to holding open an elevator and shouting "shame" at a Senator.
A very cogent question. The answer is no. Originally the plan was for Mike Pence to unilaterally decertify various states. This version of the coup would have required no violence.
But Pence refused to decertify the election, because he recognized he did not have the power to do so. He communicated this intention to Trump the morning of Jan 6. At this point, violence was the last resort to delay the certification on Jan 6.