Source: The American Conservative.
A for-the-record post. That is, I doubt the practical observations this story contains will have much influence on those who ardently believe “our democracy” was threatened on Jan. 6, but now that the post is on file we may reference it later, as needed.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I for one never said it was a coup. It was an autogolpe. It was also a felonious interference with Congress performing its duty under the constitution.
I think a phrase that does fit, however, is that is was coup in search of a legal theory. A theory with no basis in history or law.
And that is why pardons were sought by the perpetrators.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wikipedia: “A self-coup, also called autocoup (from the Spanish autogolpe), is a form of coup d’état in which a nation’s leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.”
LikeLike
Thanks for that. I now have a better understanding of why Len prefers the term “autogolpe” to describe the seditious criminal conspiracy that Trump organized to stay in power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that is what Trump and his minions tried to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s debatable, but in any case they could not have succeeded without the support of the military, which they didn’t have.
LikeLike
A fine example of the level of stupidity rampant in “conservative” circles.
This dope has NOT been paying attention.
For obvious starters, his claim that “America transitioned peacefully from one administration to another. ” is total baloney. There was a full day of armed conflict that never should have taken place. There was nothing peaceful about it.
The author makes a great deal of the fact that the military did not back this coup. He says that without that there was no viable plan for Trump to stay in power. That is 1000% bullshit.
There was a detailed plan cooked up by the pardon-seeking “lawyer” John Eastman. The plan was followed. Fake Electors prepared. Rioters summoned. All it required was for Vice President Pence to break the law and throw out the votes. Then, with the nation in the grips of a Constitutional crisis, the election could be thrown to the House where the voting is rigged in Trump’s favor. Or friendly state legislatures could send alternative fake Electors friendly to Trump to an Electoral College recount.
Had Vice President Pence not behaved honorably that day or had he failed to escape those seeking to hang him, the seditious conspiracy might have succeeded. There is nothing fanciful about that conclusion. That is the fact of the matter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A full day?
One of those new. condensed 4 hour days?
LikeLike
“A full day?”
Really? You that petty?
The first violence occurred around 11:30am when Senators were obstructed from travelling from their offices to the Capitol. Because of the violence, the convening of the Congress was set back to 8:00pm. That is close enough for a “full day” for government work.
But besides your petty nitpicking, it remains true that the transfer of power was not peaceful and that is kind of the point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The transfer of power occurred more peacefully than a George Floyd riot.
LikeLike
If you think I am going to accuse of racism when you bring up racist comparisons, think again. I am not going to do that. It does not matter. The author states that there was a peaceful transfer of power. That claim is obviously false.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That claim is obviously false.”
It is obviously true.
LikeLike
Peaceful?
Tell that to the survivors of the people who died as result of the seditious violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You mean the people the government killed?
LikeLike
I believe the final wrap up was early January 7. A couple of dead attackers, 100+ police hospitalized, followed by more fatalities afterwards. Millions in damage. Caches of arms stored nearby. Some guns carried in. Lots of other weapons, tactical gear, radio and phone coordination. Screaming for hanging the VP, the Speaker, Schumer. It was “wild” just as Trump “predicted” and planned.
Peaceful? Not so much. Spur of the moment by angry misfits? Not really.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uh, has anyone been charged for carrying a firearm into the Capitol?
Were there some people there intending to do real harm? Certainly, but a smaller share than at a typical BLM or antifa riot.
If you want to paint the entire rally with the image of a few score real nutcases, then do the same with BLM and antifa.
The real attempted coup in this country was the first impeachment attempt against Trump.
That Impeachment was based on the Russia collusion hoax, which we now know the DNC knew it was a hoax of their own manufacture.
That wasn’t wild or angry, it was pure, calculated sedition.
LikeLike
Durham’s case was blown apart. So you are wrong…again.
The first impeachment was not about Russia. It was the attempted extortion of Zelensky to get dirt on Hunter Biden.
What does BLM have to do with excusing the violence on 1/6?
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, Durham’s case has not been blown apart, there is still plenty to come. In front of any jury other than DC, Sussman would be in orange.
BLM has resulted in considerably more violence than 1/6. They aren’t related, but if you want to paint all the 1/6 rally with the acts of the few, then turnaround is warranted.
LikeLike
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/13/donald-trump/jan-6-defendants-were-armed-guns-other-weapons-doc/
Remember that few were arrested at the Capitol. So there could have been many more guns.
But even without guessing, there was plenty of evidence of at least a few guns. Fortunately the police showed great restraint, otherwise it could have been a bloodbath.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Politifact lies.
Again, was anyone arrested in the Capitol with a gun?
Not in their hotel room or at their homes, In the Capitol?
LikeLike
“Politifact lies.”
So have you. But you are calling Politfact liars becaue you don’t agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They aren’t related, but if you want to paint all the 1/6 rally with the acts of the few, then turnaround is warranted.”
Define a few? Testimony from the British filmmaker was that he was with about 250 Proud Boys who positioned themselves to breach the Capitol even before Trump even started speaking. Of course, a large portion of the rioters that followed them into the Capitol were dupes being used to add mass to the Capitol incursion. All part of the plan.
You still referring to the “Russia collusion hoax” marks you as a real dummy. You are STILL pretending that Durham is going to find something to show you that poor little Trumpy was the victim of a giant conspiracy. Your dog whistle about the jury who almost laughed the one pitiful case out of court is clear for all to hear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sussman quite clearly lied to the FBI, but you can’t convict a Democrat in DC, nor will a Republican ever be exonerated. 1/6 defendants would be better off asking for bench trials.
LikeLike
…”but you can’t convict a Democrat in DC”…
As I said at the time, then it is prosecutorial failure to present a case to a jury that fails to convince the jury a crime was committed. Durham blew it, but you want to blame the jury? Based on your comment, I couldn’t get exonerated in Texas.
And 1/6 defendants? I thought they were just trespassing?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why can’t a Democrat be convicted in DC?
Why do you insist Sussman was lying to the FBI? Do you have information no one else is privy to?
LikeLiked by 2 people
He was working for Democrts, so he HAD to be lying! Just ask Don abotu it.
LikeLike
You keep sliming the people of DC. Not capable of hearing the evidence and making an objective decision? Why? Because they are “urban” people who cannot think for themselves? Not smart like you?
By all reports, it was not even close. The jury was out for mere hours. The case was about a trivial matter not even central to the Russia/Trump collusion story. The “crime” accused was trivial – not even perjury – and the evidence was thin from the beginning – not even a recording of the “crime.” He said-he said. And, there was direct testimony under oath that contradicted the substance of the case. After years of searching and spending millions of dollars, Durham found NOTHING to support the Trump Russia hoax bullshit you keep spreading.
It is odd how you people cannot accept the obvious facts. Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia helped the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign knew it, shared data, got heads up on hacked materials, took meetings, and worked with them. All documented in the Mueller report. The only facts that could not be determined because of stonewalling and the promise of pardons was the degree of direct involvement by Trump himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“That Impeachment was based on the Russia collusion hoax”…..
BUZZZZ!!!! Wrong again, Dr. Mistken. The first impeachment had to do with the phone call to Ukraine. “”I’d like you to do us a favor, though.”
No charges came about because of what you are calling the “Russian hoax”. And the only thing that has been found was a couple of lawyers screwing up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Armed conflict” all day, LMAO, now that is the BS…yeah, I hear cell phones come with 10k shot magazines …..depending on memory of course.
LikeLike
No question it wasn’t a coup.
But was it an attempted coup?
I don’t think so. The folks who have been charged and convicted couldn’t overtake their local libraries.
LikeLike
Of course, it was not a coup. It was an attempted coup that failed because one guy would not join the seditious conspiracy.
A failed bank robbery is still a bank robbery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You contradict yourself. Try again.
LikeLike
You will have to tell what contradiction you refer to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Of course, it was not a coup. It was an attempted coup. .. A failed bank robbery is still a bank robbery.”
LikeLike
I think I see what you mean.
I should have not tried to agree with and simply said that an attempted coup is a coup.
Whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uh, no.
Even had Pence gone along with it, SCOTUS would not, nor would enough GOP Senators to confirm his actions.
It was an expression of rage by people who sincerely believed the election was stolen, even if incorrectly.
LikeLike
Uh, Yes.
What Republicans in SCOTUS or in the Senate would do in the event that Pence (or after his death, Grassley) had stopped the count and sent it back to the states for re-certification is most likely the opposite of what you are claiming they would do.
It is no longer reasonable to assume that Republicans would do the honorable, patriotic or legal thing when push comes to shove.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You like having things both ways.
In one post you tell us that everyone around Trump was telling him his claims were baseless(incorrect, but they were moot) and in another you want to claim they would all agree with him.
LikeLike
“You like having things both ways.”
Uh, in your imagination maybe.
If Mike Pence had been a co-conspirator and the count had been stopped all the naysayers would see what a “genius” Trump was and fall into line. In a heartbeat. Senators who would not vote to convict on the overwhelming evidence of two impeachments were not going to change their stripes in a Constitutional crisis. IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”nor would enough GOP Senators to confirm his actions.”
You have a lot more faith in the GOP Senators than pretty much anyone else in the country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly what is the fricking difference? There is either a successful coup or an unsuccessful coup and you said it was no coup. Stop playing ignorant meaningless word games. Face it, your team is a bunch of losers trying to electioneer midterms and 2024 with a bag full of crap and no one is listening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was an attempted autogolpe, or auto coup.
If Pence collaborated, the states could recertify with new electors, or that was the plan.
If he did not, then the backup was planned to create enough chaos to merit martial law and cancellation of votes in swing states. And Trump would stay in power.
Folks involved then look for pardons before Trump left office.
Emails, texts, phone calls, 1000 testimonies under oath, extensive videos from both security cameras and cell phones all point to an attempted auto coup to keep Trump in office after he lost big time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “If he did not, then the backup was planned to create enough chaos to merit martial law and cancellation of votes in swing states. And Trump would stay in power.”
You should read the TAC article:
Even if Congress nullified the election results, as Trump wished, Trump would have had to leave office.
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense.
LikeLike
In this case … Conspiracy fact. The evidence is compelling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You guys are so full of crap. Even as a suspense thriller, none of your narrative holds real water. It couldn’t happen if you pay any attention to reality.
LikeLike
…”pay any attention to reality.”
Considering what you believe to be real, I am not convinced by your statement. Nor should you be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well I certainly agree with the author as this is exactly what I have been saying for quite come time. A bunch of hyped up goofs rioting at the cspital armed with cell phones does not a coup or insurrection make. In fact, the rioting that occurred at Trumps inauguration was much closer to a coup attempt than Jan 6 and a hell of a lot more destructive.
LikeLike
The funny(?) thing about this whole business is the blueprint for how to do this was demonstrated in 2000. But the Trump people would rather play commando than admit the “RINOs” knew what they were doing with the “Brooks Brothers Riot.” All they had to do was make sure the challenge made it to the “non-partisan” Supreme Court.
In typical Trump fashion, he couldn’t be bothered to attend to the details and just assumed a few of his fans would take care of things for him.
LikeLiked by 2 people