It defies logic and known facts

[Stinky The Clown]

January 6 was an attempted coup.

Not a riot. Not an insurrection.

A COUP

These people who invaded the US Capitol to "stop the steal" were locked and loaded. What does anyone think they would have done had they encountered Pence or Pelosi or The Squad or any of a myriad of known government officials? Had tea?

Were it not for the best of the Capitol Police and DC Police people would have died.

And had any of that happened, what would have been next? Decapitate the Democrats and what would have happened next?

What would have happened?

Donald Trump would have done whatever worked to declare himself President For Life.

THAT was the end game.

This was a coup.

When will we start to hear that?

[Bob Munck]

1. It was an attempted coup ...

... it may or may not have come close to succeeding (no real way to tell), but now it has completely failed.

It was defeated by a bunch of things, including the Capitol Police, the media, BLM, the Democratic Party, election officials all over the country, the incompetence of those attempting it (especially Trump), DC gun laws, a few Republican politicians, and the U.S. Constitution.

[TomSlick]

2. I will grant you that 1/6 was an attempted coup d'etat but it was not a coup d'etat.

A coup d'etat is a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics - a violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group. [link:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d%27%C3%A9tat| (Emphasis added.)

To have been a coup d'etat, the actions of 1/6 would have to have been successful in overthrowing the government. However, an attempted but unsuccessful coup is an insurrection.

The distinction is important only because while there is no reference in the U.S. Code to unsuccessful coup d'etat (that I can find), rebellion or insurrection is a ten-year crime under 18 U.S. Code § 2383.

Yes I know, squinting at gnats is why lawyers drive other folks crazy.

[BobTheSubgenius]

3. I understand the reasons for the law reading as it does, I think.

I would have thought that a country would place more weight on an attempted overthrow of their government, successful or not, than 10 years.

I also wonder who would be around to prosecute a successful coup, unless there is a successful counter-coup.

All pretty academic, and, as the laws are what they are, moot, as well. I just want the right people to be doing some serious time. IMO, they acted in concert, even if not everyone had ever met everyone else. Overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy makes them all guilty, doesn't it?

If charges like that could be laid, they would provide some serious leverage. My feeling is that at least half of them would fold like a tissue paper tent, facing whatever charges like that would bring after a conviction.

[TomSlick]

4. All good points.

I have no explanation for why the maximum sentence for rebellion / insurrection is not more severe. Under English common law. the penalty would have been "the traitor's death," not an enlightened form of correction. Interestingly to me, as best I can tell the people arrested so far are not being charged with insurrection but with trespass-type and assault-type crimes. I continue to harbor hope there will be superseding indictments for insurrection. I also hope that people who did not enter the capital but incited those who did will be charged with seditious conspiracy.

In the event of a coup d'etat, the question of whether there is a prosecution depends on how successful it is. There is a discussion among historians, political scientists, etc., about how long a new government must be in place for it to be called a coup d'etat. A coup d'etat that installs a new government over the long term, e.g. the American War of Independence, tends to be called a revolution and the leaders are heroes, while a coup d'etat that manages to install a new government for a shorter term, e.g. the English Civil War, tends to called by less favorable terms and the leaders remembered more as criminals.

Whether the cabal behind a coup d'etat ever find themselves in the dock depends on how long they are in power. Cromwell's posthumous "execution" is an interesting example of not quite enough time passing before the restoration of the deposed regime. Only in America would the leaders of an eventually defeated coup d'etat not only avoid execution but have monuments raised in their honor on public property.

I entirely agree that all involved in the 1/6 insurrection - whether they entered the Capitol, were engaged in planning, or incited the foolish - should find themselves in the dock.