|
|
|
|
|
by pseudalopex
1989 days ago
|
|
Some took selfies. Some proclaimed themselves in control of Congress. Some entered the Senate chamber with weapons and handcuffs. The authors said a coup has 3 criteria. > 3) Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power? The authors said yes. > 2) Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government? The authors said yes. > 1) Are the perpetrators agents of the state, such as military officials or rogue governmental officials? The authors said no because Trump can deny meaning to incite it. They're extremely charitable. And this isn't part of the common definition of a coup anyway. |
|
I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power, as the power is simply not there. Power is alliances and a chain of command, not being in a room with shiny big buttons.
I do agree that Trump's position is ambiguous: one cannot deny that he was probably hoping for more. In that case he would be the only one to have imagined a coup, as the rioters were just a few... impressionables.