Definition: coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government."
....from the government: Check. He was attempting to disrupt the actions of congress, aka the legislative branch of government.
A "seizure of power" is not the same as "attempting to disrupt the actions", so I disagree with making that leap. And I did warn people I was focused on the wording, so I hope this comment isn't bothersome or a surprise.
Although U.S. politicians wouldn't use the French term "coup d'etat", I think the Meriam Webster defintion for that best fits my undertanding of the word coup in this context.
"especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9tat
More concisely, "the violent overthrow of a government", where I would argue "existing government" is relevent and others may disagree with me. Did the violent mob "overthrow" the government? I don't think so.
There was a risk that members of Congress could be attacked by a violent mob, but ultimately no member of Congress was attacked. A proceeding of Congress was disrupted, and delayed by many hours - but it took place hours later. The power to name the next President was not "seized", nor was a government "overthrown".
Agreed.
The Jan 6 attack on the US capitol was a failed coup attempt. It didn't succeed well enough to be classified as a coup.
(This obviously doesn't in any way change the seriousness of the attempt though, or the concern that all citizens should feel that a elected president encouraged the attempt and has continued to lie about the legitimacy of the election.)
I acknowledge there is more to Jan 6th than what I'm focused on, the semantics of what to call the events of that day. But that's why I've explained I'm exploring just the semantics, and don't expect that to be everyone's interest in the events.
The definition of coup mentions (violent) "seizure of power", while coup d'etat contains (violent) "overthrow", so I think those quoted phrases are equivalent. The power being seized is all of it - the entire power of the government. To call Jan 6th an attempted coup, I think there needs to be strong evidence some group was attempting to overthrow the government.
I'll make an assumption that the Oath Keepers
Proud Boys I heard about in the news, and the criminals who plead guilty to "seditious conspiracy" (and many violent crimes) are the same group. If this group of Oath Keepers
Proud Boys was attempting a coup, I can't find any charges more serious than "seditious conspiracy", to which they've already plead guilty. I guess that leaves me with two questions, again focused on the evidence for what to call this:
(1) If those Oath Keepers
Proud Boys (a) planned to overthrow the government and (b) took one or more actions as part of that plan, why aren't they charged with more than "seditious conspiracy"? (It's possible I missed something)
{{EDIT}}
Seditious conspiracy occurs when two or more people in the U.S. conspire to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force” the U.S. government, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law. If convicted, it’s 20 years behind bars.
https://apnews.com/article/riots-conspiracy-9d22bdd4e2d4d786531ebe0fb8095de4{{end EDIT}}
(2) Is there strong evidence tying one or more people in the U.S. government to the "seditious conspiracy" of those Oath Keepers
Proud Boys? (That might be a goal of the Jan 6th hearings, so maybe the answer to this question develops over the next week or so.)
{EDIT: News articles say it was the "Oath Keepers" who stormed the capital in military formations, not the
Proud Boys}
{{2nd EDIT: I've answered question (1) above based on an AP news article I read}}
