Coup d’état!

https://tinyurl.com/jfwxxnym

Inevitably the details of the attack on Congress and attempted coup are going to come to light. There is much more to come but what is already known is utterly damning. Until the GOP purges itself of anyone and everyone who continues to ignore and/or whitewash this treachery no patriotic citizen should vote for any of them at any level.

38 thoughts on “Coup d’état!

  1. Note that the article asserts that Trump schemed to make questionable legal arguments to change the outcome of the election, which had nothing to do with the Jan 6 riot.

    That is in no way a coup d’état. It was vain and stupid, but the demonstrators turned rioters were not involved and likely didn’t even know about most of it.

    Seriously, you’re turning into the left-wing version of Q-anon with these looney conspiracy theories.

    Like

    1. Uh, it was essential for the legalistic machinations being planned that the Certification be stopped. Trump EXPLICITLY wound up the crowd to do EXACTLY that – go to the Capitol and “Stop the Steal.” The idea that this was no coup because most of the people incited to riot did not know the reason they were being incited is a very poor argument. Besides, we already know that some of them DID know exactly what the game plan was. And acted accordingly.

      That it was “vain and stupid” does not negate that it was a vain and stupid attempt to hold power illegitmately based on a LIE. That is exactly how a coup goes down.

      “Seriously,” there is nothing but facts in plain sight. No Q-Anon looniness required. What is actually looney is people like you refusing to admit the obvious facts. Of course, after four years of Trump you are well practiced in turning a willfully blind eye to his crimes.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. In any case, not a coup d’état which is an extra-legal seizure of the government.

        Not that I think they were valid, but had Trump’s legal strategies succeeded they would still not have been a coup d’état, they would have been justice,

        Like

        1. “Legal strategies” based on false evidence are ILLEGAL strategies. Attempting to seize the government based on ILLEGAL strategies is an attemted coup. There was no massive voter fraud nor ANY rational reason to believe that there might have been.

          You say that if he had succeeded in overturning the election that “would have been justice.” It follows that you still believe the Big Lie and Biden’s decisive victory was a fraud. I have struggled but cannot find the words to express how utterly pitiful that is.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You really need to read more carefully.

            I did not say Trump’s maneuvers were valid, I said that had they passed muster through the courts then it would be justice.

            A coup requires the use of force or threat of effective force. An attempt to delay the proceedings until the courts had ruled is not a coup.

            Like

          2. …”through the courts then it would be justice.”

            you left out two letters .. i-n.

            And it is the new strategy of the GOP-sponsored elections”integrity” laws in the several states. THe issue that is being ignored is the possibility (probability?) of voter nullification where if the “leaders” don’t like the outcome of an election, they can just overturn it. Those moves are being codified and I will be very interested to see if it comes to pass in 2022 or 2024.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “…until courts have ruled…”?

            What ruling? What courts were waiting?

            The point was to illegally decertify the electors from 7 states and send the election to the House with each state getting one vote.

            This decertification was to be “encouraged” by threatening the Congress and the VP, as in “Hang Mike Pence”, gallows, zip ties and all.

            Essentially, overturning a duly elected government, even before inauguration, is a coup.

            Now, if it fails, that is an “attempted coup”.

            Autogolpe might be more accurate. That is the term in South and Central America describing a sitting President who tries to maintain power through stacking courts, appointing friendly election officials, and getting helpful street “militias” to provide the dirty work. Rallies for “law and order” are a nice add on.

            Gee, where have we seen this recently?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “A coup requires the use of force or threat of effective force.”

            WTF do you think happened on January 6th?

            There was no legal way to stop the certification of the election. Therefore a mob was incited to stop it by force and threats (“Hang Mike Pence!”) . Which is exactly what they were sent there to do. That makes the violence leading to the deaths of those five policemen an attempted coup d’etat.

            It is worth remembering that this is not the first time that the GOP has used mob violence to subvert the election process. The Brooks Brothers riot of 2000 was cut from the same cloth and with the connivance of a partisan SCOTUS, succeeded.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Blah, blah, blah. This is the Mueller report all over again. The Insurrection Myth is no different from the Russia Hoax.

    Like

        1. “blatant stupidity?”

          You seem to think that calling me names, invoking George Soros, repeating absurd conspiracy theories and sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “blah blah blah” are bona fide contributions to a discussion of the critical issues of the day. Heads up – they are not. Thus my ironical reference to “amazing intellect.”

          So what part of this detailed report in the foreign press of Trump’s behavior was “blatant stupidity?”

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “So what part of this detailed report in the foreign press of Trump’s behavior was ‘blatant stupidity?'”

          The blatant stupidity is you calling January 6 a “coup d’etat.”

          As I wrote before you took offense: “The Insurrection Myth is no different from the Russia Hoax.”

          Like

          1. “The blatant stupidity is you calling January 6 a “coup d’etat.””

            My bad. I should have called it an “attempted coup d’etat.” And like everything else in Trump’s sorry but privileged life, it was a failure.

            My reasons for calling it what it was is a little thing called “evidence.” The Guardian article linked to provides a concise summary of the current state of that evidence.

            Your reasons for calling this choice of words “blatantly stupid” are what . . .?

            The fact that you really, really do not want to believe the truth does not change it. If you live long enough maybe you will come to understand that some day.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. This is why I stopped commenting. The first two responses are insulting accusations and fingers in the ears denial.

    January 6 was planned and paid for by Trump. His minions set up in the Willard to plan the overturning of the most scrutinized, transparent and audited election in recent history.

    DOJ was pressed to lie about fraud.

    Call were made to intimidate and extort Republican election officials to lie and commit fraud.

    “Demonstrators” showed up heavily armed, (yes some admitted later to having guns) with climbing gear, gas masks, chemical sprays, clubs, armored vests, and zip ties. Even Brooks bragged about wearing armor to speak at rally.

    All of this is well documented.

    So if this is how today’s conservatives want to run the country, they can at least admit they were cheering on the effort to steal an election that was lost by 7 million votes and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of verified, certified, counted and recounted votes in states.

    Alas, that door is shut tight. As are eyes and ears.

    Don, you said “I told you so” regarding Biden and the Democrats. Good phrase, but borrowed from the vast majority of Americans who realized the problem with Trump and his cult like attraction.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “All of this is well documented.”

      A lot more is well documented, too. Such as FBI infiltration of protest groups and agents’ active instigation of violence. Or the absence of prosecutions that support the insurrection narrative. Or the lies that media told about events that day.

      Better examples of real insurrection exist, such as when Puerto Rican nationalists shot up the House of Representatives in 1954 or when the Weather Underground bombed the capitol and the Pentagon in 1971, or when a deranged Democrat shot and wounded Republicans practicing for a Congressional baseball game in 2017.

      Like

      1. Call it what you will. Perhaps attempted murder and kidnapping are more suited to your taste.

        The key is the attempted overturning the election by violence. And that it was planned at the highest levels for weeks, even months, in advance. The FBI has infiltrated various anti-government militias, as they are supposed to do.

        Inciting violence? Please cite. Thanks.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. I am not arguing “insurrection”. I didn’t even mention that in my original post.

            The effort to overturn the election extra-legally is well documented.

            Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, 2 Percenters (or is it 3, 1?) distinctions without a difference. A lot of militia members in full tactical gear, zip ties, gallows, knives, guns, chemical spray, climbing equipment showed up and sent a hundred plus police to the hospital and caused the death of several others, police and mob members.

            Why the climbing gear and zip ties? Or is that normal for Trump rallies?

            “Hang Mike Pence”. More normal chants?

            You can dance all the grammatical jigs you want, it does not change the actions of Trump and his followers to create violence as a way of forcing a decertification of a legal and fair election.

            It is that simple.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. Desperate talk. Apparently the Dems have figured out that Youngkin will probably win. So they’re talking one more desperate bet on the insurrection thing.

    Trouble is, Biden is the worst president in our history. The Dems have let a gangster like Fauci run loose. The withdrawal from Afghanistan is a national disgrace that will live on. The Dems and bad ed are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Voters have no good reason to vote for Terry. I think if the votes are honestly counted, Youngkin wins by tsunami.

    Like

  5. Left wing nuts poke their heads up from the gopher once again. Just about all of these so called insurrectionists were “armed” with smart phones but the looney left won’t leave well enough alone. I smell a Republican victory in Va and also a wave of disgruntled liberal hooligans rioting, burning businesses, looting, assaulting police, tearing down some statues and displaying all the endearing qualities that we have come to know and hold dear to our hearts. Talk about desperation, this story is more left wing comedy than anything and the leader of the band, Paul, never fails to deliver. Trump, Trump, Trump, boom, boom, boom…too much and simply pathetic

    Like

    1. Armed with smart phones. True. But also with pipe bombs, full tactical gear, zip ties, gallows, knives, guns, chemical spray, climbing equipment. And let’s not forget American flags perfect for bludgeoning police officers.

      Fortunately for the justice system these geniuses used those smart phones to document their crimes.

      You are right. Youngkin may win. The election is going to be close. A nice clean white man willing to spend his own millions on slander advertising always has a pretty good chance in a state like this. If Youngkin wins I do not expect a reaction in the street – McAuliffe just does not inspire that kind of passion. I also do not expect McAuliffe to sulk and pout and claim the election was stolen from him. I will be disappointed if he does. Being a whiny sore loser is a Republican thing.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You were saying?

        “I also do not expect McAuliffe to sulk and pout and claim the election was stolen from him. I will be disappointed if he does. Being a whiny sore loser is a Republican thing.”

        https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/mcauliffe-campaign-hired-democratic-elections-lawyer-marc-elias-then McAuliffe campaign hires super Democrat elections lawyer Marc Elias, then tries to ‘kill’ story. Legal scholars are speculating that the McAuliffe’s cynical hire may indicate that the Democrat will not concede the election to Glenn Youngkin, should he lose

        Like

        1. I was saying . . . “I also do not expect McAuliffe to sulk and pout and claim the election was stolen from him. I will be disappointed if he does. Being a whiny sore loser is a Republican thing.”

          I stand by that.

          Considering the landslide of frivolous lawsuits the GOP hurled at the 2020 election winner, getting election legal help lined up can be seen as prudent. “Stolen elections” is the go to whine for GOP losers. It is good to be prepared.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Precedents were set in 2000 and 2020 for Republican armies of lawyers challenging election results on a grand scale. Backed up with violence as in the “Brooks Bros.” attacks in Florida and 1/6 at our nation’s Capitol.

          Perhaps lining up a good legal team ahead of time is prudent.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. amazing how you left out Hillary and a few others (like Stacy) … the Fairfax election head … but don’t let facts get in the way of your narrative. You know, sort of like your 1/6 fantasy.

            Given Biden’s boo’s, I’d say you have more to worry about.

            Like

          2. Both Clinton and Abrams conceded the election shortly after the official tallies were announced.

            Neither one organized an attack on respective Capitols.

            What is your point?

            Like

          3. I guess I missed it. When did the Democrats dispatch armies of violent rioters to overturn election processes?

            BTW, our 1/6 “fantasy” is very real to the families of the dead, the maimed and, of course, the shitheads who will be spending the next years as guests of Uncle Sam.

            Liked by 1 person

  6. Dr Tabor,

    A long piece of invective complete with personal insults prepared by poster nichollsvi2 has come to my gmail inbox for approval. Is that a bug or what? Does each post need approval? This one has a very large number of links to various articles damning Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams. Is the large number of links triggering the approval requirement? Why was it sent to me? I will go ahead and approve it but you may want to check why this happened.

    Like

    1. Follow up – when I clicked on Approve I was notified that I do not have authority to manage comments so the comment in question may be stuck in limbo somewhere.

      The poster may want to resubmit it.

      Like

    2. No those weren’t personal insults, those were links to info on the 2 people you mentioned. Basically on their bringing up election issues which you accuse the conservatives of doing but not the leftists. In other words hypocrisy.

      One comment only was made because it is a fantasy to see that the 1/6 issue was any sort of insurrection, while leaving the loads of leftists/Antifa, etc. destruction as something ok.

      Maybe you all need to make it so proof (which is something conservatives do) and research linked to what we say is open to you. Life isn’t all feelings. Feelings got us the lowest rated POTUS ever. The regret index is huge on him.

      Like

      1. I took the following to be a personal insult . . .

        “So outside pointing out your need of needing professional help for your fantasies”

        There is a major difference between the violence of January 6th and all of the other instances of unrest that you care to dig up. Only the violence of January 6th was organized and incited by the President with the purpose of overthrowing an election and it was the only violence directed at the elected representatives of the people. This difference is not hard to understand if you want to.

        Like

        1. 1) Do a search for Biden lowest rated. No Fox News in there. CNN shows up, but not FN. I have had no TV in more than a decade, so wrong assumption that I listen/watch them. Most people I know don’t.
          2) Wikipedia is your source? LOL. Any one can modify that, it is not reliable. Try doing the search above.
          3) Didn’t list any other source the Wikipedia. I at least gave you a lot of them.
          4) So funny how you don’t even know about viewing habits and auto assume “hatred”. That’s what happens because that’s all leftists are: hate and more hate. Notice how divisive the left is, but the right is more unified? That’s because our policies unify, they don’t divide into groups.
          5) That wasn’t a personal insult. It was meant truthfully. If you take a look back at DSM’s, you’ll see that. The most recent furor on child transgenderism was huge between Europe and America. America is growing backward all the time, and even the rest of the west is leaving us out because of the lack of reality.
          6) When you’re invited in, unlike all the other govt. overthrow – like Portlandia – maybe Seattle? – then that says hypocrisy.

          Btw, the Bible indicated folks like you – depraved mind, the mind is no longer useful because it can’t think straight. Take a listen to John MacArthur. He’s got you all pegged. Call evil good and good evil.

          Like

          1. I did the recommended research “Biden lowest rated.” I found a number of stories indicating that Biden’s approval rating has reached a new low FOR HIM. And that low is approximately what Gallop found as reported on Wikipedia. And still way above MANY other Presidents’s lows.

            So what is going on? My conclusion is that you took “new low” to refer to ALL TIME and not just FOR HIM. Easy mistake to make? I don’t think so.

            The rest of your six point post is too bizarre to respond to coherently, so I will pass. I mean really, how does one argue with the claim that I am “depraved?” And “child transgenderism?”

            Like

      2. By the way, if you want to make an argument it is best to not rely on made up facts. In this case you are saying that President Biden is the lowest rated President ever. Did YOU make up this “fact” or was it fed to you by Fox news?

        A tiny bit of research – which you claim is what you people do – would show you that this claim is FALSE.

        According to Gallop, Biden’s approval rating reached its low point a few days ago. It was at 42% approval Trump’s low point was 34%. More telling Biden’s high point was 57% while Trump NEVER broke 50%. Besides Trump other President have had much lower low points than Biden. G. W. Bush at 25%. Obama at 40%. Clinton at 37%. Nixon 24%. And MANY more.

        Maybe it is just me, but I find it laughable to be lectured about doing my research by someone who tries to bolster his hatred with phony claims EASILY disproved. By rudimentary research.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s