What are you talking about? There most certainly was, and a successful one at that. The mob had firearms and pipe bombs and a wide variety of melee weapons. They smashed their way into the building. Rioters intended to hold lawmakers captive and planned to execute the vice president. Several people died.
The sitting president led a mob to levy war against the United States. The fact that it was ineffective doesn't matter.
A generous to the other side reading of events would be it was a suggestive display of power, that he could rally even more later. Kind of like his perfect phone call being pitched as a thinly-veiled mafioso threat.
Real coups attempts involve officers rally elements to decapitate attentive movements, leaders, non-supporters.
In no honest reality was the mob action on the Capitol anything other than a nuisance. A police department from a city the size of DC could put down a majority unarmed mob with less-than-lethal and more-than-lethal assets.
And even if the mob magically overpowers the police department, the Nasty Girls would put them down and the inauguration ceremony would proceed as normal or be ignored and Biden installed as needed.
Your anonymous account and dishonest retelling (the pipe bombs were not at the Capitol) are nothing but a thinly veiled political troll. Go away.
Of course the Pentagon's reluctance to send in the National Guard until there was an > 0% chance that the governor of Virginia would order an "invasion" (with the consent of the city mayor) was pretty concerning but incompetence rather than some conspiracy seems like more likely explanation.
Can you elaborate on that?
The most important ones are the fake electors scheme, the phone call to Brian Kemp, and numerous attempts to steal or tamper with voting machines.
I was honestly at first reading what you said thinking "oh really, I didn't know that. I need to look into this, sounds like it was way worse than portrayed" until you said that. Somebody having a stroke is not the same thing as someone being beaten to death or shot. Even saying "several people died" demonstrates a disingenuous disposition, you have to deliberately avoid going into detail to make your point. The only person that died as a result of the actions there was a woman named Ashley Babbit who was shot by US capitol police.
Given that, I ask you, with all these firearms and pipe bombs and a real attempt at insurrection, how come nobody fired or detonated them?
Care to list which side the people were killed? And were they armed?
The people who were shot were killed to defend the capitol and were given ample warning. Ashley Babbitt, for instance, was trying to break down a door.
There was only one person shot.
I love how when I ask that same question, people like asdfgionio [1] obviously do a quick search and find (contrary to what they were told immediately afterwards) that no Capitol police was, in fact, killed during the riot. They either shut up or try to double down. I then point to Officer Sicknick's autopsy results and that usually gets them to shut up.
[1] Who I can only describe, based on his comment, as a Union Army LARPer; "We", indeed. (Actual war reenactors go to great lengths to get the uniforms, gear, and battles right; I doubt asdfgionio has ever seen a battlefield not published by EA.) I've seen several other such instances, of Redditors and such bravely proclaiming how "they" will lead another Sherman's march through states that commit the unpardonable sin of voting for the wrong candidate.
I was curious about it too because as far as I knew nobody else died from it besides the woman who was shot by capitol police. Every time I think I'm about to learn something new about J6 I don't.
Sicknick's death by stroke the day after the riot was widely attributed to some injury from the incident, despite his having told his family that he had not been injured in the first place. That's why he received the equivalent of a state funeral. That's also why the coroner specifically looked for evidence of trauma causing the stroke, either from a head injury or exposure to tear gas, and specifically ruled out both possibilities in his report. But this still doesn't prevent the gullible from prattling on about how "many" policemen were killed, or that the ravenous mob of rioters were armed with everything but a tactical nuke.
(I think this is also why we haven't yet seen a breathless best-selling account of "The Day Trump Tried to Overthrow the Government", or a Netflix docudrama. Any such work with a pretense of accuracy would have to depict, well, not much beyond 150 idiots invading a public space, refusing to obey Capitol Police's orders, and causing some mayhem until one unarmed rioter is finally shot after an inexplicable delay. No grenades/pipe bombs being detonated, no politicians being lynched, no policemen being fatally beaten by a mob.)
As I wrote elsewhere:
> Had Capitol Police as a whole done their job and used their training and weapons to stop the invaders in the first place, a great deal of trouble would have been avoided while more rioters would have been shot (which I have no problem with). Why they did not do their job is something that I trust will be answered one day.
Both of them were ultimately political protests and yet everyone seems to have forgotten about the actually violent one.